Subconscious and the Soul

[greylorn]

Why would anyone be interested in “falsifying” a spurious notion you created? I have never found attacking straw men a very effective approach.

You have created an inaccurate definition of “subconscious”, then falsely asserted that it is based in a “portion of the brain”.

Since the soul includes non material properties, I don’t believe such a definition would ever suit your criteria.

the purpose for the souls 'existence is the same as for all of creation, to glorify the Creator.

No, grey, this is a false conclusion based upon a false premise.

You see, Catholics believe in all that is “seen and unseen”, and that reality exists on a non-material plane as well as the material.

No wonder Jesus can walk through walls and such.

Yes, the field of science has certainly grown. However, those who have continued Freud’s research have continued to make repeated observations with the same conclusions.

Freud did not “invent” the subconscious, but only recorded his findings. He wrote a great deal about the mechanisms of it’s implementation. It turns out he had a very godless perception of the world.

guano,

There seems no point in a further conversation between us. You are too ignorant of the principles of critical thinking and basic physics to comprehend much of what I write. You are too old to be worth trying to re-educate. I have no interest in getting past the double levels of dogma needed to deal with a Freudian Catholic who is so ignorant of Freudianism that he will pretend that Freud did not invent the concept of the subconscious. There’s no way to anticipate your other inventions, and it is clear that you are not the man to acknowledge them.

Even worse, you pretend to understand my ideas without ever examining them. I find this kind of behavior to be dishonest, and even worse, intellectually pretentious.

Thank you for your replies, nonetheless. Let’s not get into an exchange of personalities. I don’t admire yours, you don’t like mine. Leave it there.

 

[guanophore]

There seems no point in a further conversation between us. You are too ignorant of the principles of critical thinking and basic physics to comprehend much of what I write.

The fact that someone does not agree with your basic assumptions does not necessarily mean they cannot think, or reject the basic concepts of physics.

Any faithful Catholic, though, Freudian or not, will resist your premise that all life, and human functioning follows the basic laws of physics. Though we are physical creatures, bound to a physical existence in this world, we are also much more than that. Made in the image and likeness of God, we also have qualities that defy the laws of physics, and by virtue of our birthright in heaven, can also participate in the supernatural.

If a Catholic rejects these things, then a Catholic must also reject much of the New Testament, the life of Christ, and the lives and acts of the Apostles.

You are too old to be worth trying to re-educate.

This is regrettable. I will inform my graduate advisor at my earliest opportunity.

I have no interest in getting past the double levels of dogma needed to deal with a Freudian Catholic who is so ignorant of Freudianism that he will pretend that Freud did not invent the concept of the subconscious.

It is clear that you are not interested in reading the posts. If you were, you would have determined clearly by this time that Freud comprised a godless system of the psych, which cannot be ethically embraced by any Catholic.

Furhter, if you were reading the posts, you would also have noted that the reason I took issue with your spurious definition of the term “subconscious” was because it was inconsistent with that of Freud, who invented the term.

But, you are right, Freud did not “invent” any part or function of the human Soul. The credit for that goes only to God our Creator. Freud studied phenomena he did not understaand, and speculated about meaning and function. He was a neurologist, and tried to understand the symptoms he saw from a purely biological point of view. HIs determination that this is ultimately impossible with the human animal made him a laughingstock among his peers.

Even worse, you pretend to understand my ideas without ever examining them. I find this kind of behavior to be dishonest, and even worse, intellectually pretentious.

I don’t think I pretended to understand them at all. It seems to me that I rejected them outright as having no basis.

Thank you for your replies, nonetheless. Let’s not get into an exchange of personalities. I don’t admire yours, you don’t like mine. Leave it there.

This would be an example of another incorrect assumption. Freud called this phenomenon “projection”, when a person puts their own attitudes into another, and assigns their origin to the other person.

On the contrary, I have no animosity or dislike of your personality at all. I have no knowledge of your personality. I have objected to your points, something to which you are apparently unaccustomed, and this has apparently hurt your feelings. For that I do apologize. I have been told that I can be too blunt at times - a character flaw to which I must give constant attention.

You are correct that it is needful for us to focus on the topic, rather than personalities. What about getting back to the thread topic?

Is there any chance you would consider another definition of “subconscious” or “soul” in addition to your own?

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

I wonder what the general conviction is here regarding whether it is metaphysically possible for the mind to exist apart from the brain.

 

[greylorn]

I wonder what the general conviction is here regarding whether it is metaphysically possible for the mind to exist apart from the brain.

That would depend upon the meaning of “mind.”

A more interesting and appropriate word is “consciousness,” along with its associated necessary properties, of course. That also makes the question easier to answer.

If consciousness does not exist without brain, it would seem that we go into eternity without awareness of doing so.

 

[greylorn]

I don’t think I pretended to understand them at all. It seems to me that I rejected them outright as having no basis.

guano,

I regard those who reject ideas which they do not understand as ignorant, by choice, and nitwits by predisposition— people manifesting a determination to remain ignorant.

There are others who actually do read things outside the scope of their dogma, and endeavor to learn that which they did not previously “know,” or, even more radically, to explore the relevancy of that which they’ve been programmed to believe.

c.f: Matthew 25:14 etc, parable of the talents.

If you meditate deeply and perhaps seek out friends with 3-digit I.Q.s, if you have some, and ask them about this, you may come to an understanding of why I would prefer to discuss philosophy with a chimpanzee, rather than you. Chimpanzees can be taught, albeit with difficulty.