The brain death criterion and the soul

[greylorn]

So we’re introducing quantifiable things such as photons into a discussion of unquantifiable things such as souls.

I apologize. While I didn’t expect you’d understand anything I wrote, who’d have figured that you’d worry about it enough to become even more confused?

Souls are entirely quantifiable. To begin with, you are one. You can be counted. Secondly, souls have mental properties at various levels which can be measured on IQ tests, but more effectively by their ability to operate in the real world.

Whenever the Church canonizes a saint, it is effectively quantifying that soul’s level of spirituality.

As for photons, like it or not, you are processing photons at the level of soul as you read this reply. Admittedly their path from video screen to soul is circuitous, converted to neurochemical transmitters in the eye and passed into your brain, which finds a way to present that information in decoded form to you, soul. Clearly, physics determines the nature and mechanisms of these information transfers, but they begin with photons.

Your beliefs should allow the logical requirement that if soul exists, it cannot be so “spiritual” in nature that it cannot interact with physical phenomena. Otherwise, you’d not be able to pick your nose at will.

 

[GEddie]

No, canonization is not quantitative, it is binary; you are, or you aren’t.

ICXC NIKA

 

[razredge]

If the brain is dead, then the person is dead though the rest of the body might be alive.

I see no issue with that at all.

 

[GEddie]

If the brain is dead, then the person is dead though the rest of the body might be alive.

I see no issue with that at all.

Neither do I, but diagnosing brain death is tricky with an intact head, if the organs are still functional.

 

[razredge]

Neither do I, but diagnosing brain death is tricky with an intact head, if the organs are still functional.

What about with CAT scans and EEG response etc?

But yes obviously it must be shown the person must be beyond reasonable hope of regaining consciousness.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

I apologize. While I didn’t expect you’d understand anything I wrote, who’d have figured that you’d worry about it enough to become even more confused?

Pssh, been burned better and harder by 8 year olds. As an outdoor blue collar worker, let me imply that you need work on the insults

Souls are entirely quantifiable. To begin with, you are one. You can be counted. Secondly, souls have mental properties at various levels which can be measured on IQ tests, but more effectively by their ability to operate in the real world.

Quantifiable scientifically/physically? No, which is what I was implying. Now if your going to suggest philosophical conceptualization is valid to quantify such a thing, then we totally agree. What I was saying to your retort earlier about photons being completely without dimension is that your using a quantifiable thing such as photons to support your argument seems out of place. Photons being without physical dimensions are still physically observable through the human apparatus of sight.

Let’s revise the question, it seems your not a full Cartesian dualist. Regardless, how do you in your own philosophy deal with the “interaction problem” that even Descartes could not overcome?

Your beliefs should allow the logical requirement that if soul exists, it cannot be so “spiritual” in nature that it cannot interact with physical phenomena.

Serious question, not trying to belittle you at all but have you read much of hylemorphic dualism (or Thomistic dualism)? “The person is the human being, the substantial compound of matter and form. A person is an individual substance of a rational nature, but the soul is not such a substance — for it is the rational nature, not a substance with a rational nature.”
“…intellectual activity— the forming of ideas or concepts, the making of judgments, and logical reasoning — is an essentially immaterial process, a process that is intrinsically independent of matter, however much it may be extrinsically dependent on matter for its normal operations in the human being.”

This is two quotes out of David Oderberg"s work on hylemorphic dualism in his “Personal Identity” book. Good reading source: [David S. Oderberg Dualism.pdf](David S. Oderberg Dualism.pdf) More good reads on it are Edward Feser’s work in his blog. If you want more of a scientific approach, Gyula Klima did a good work on it fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/BODYSOUL.HTM

You wrote off Aquinas pretty quick earlier, just think you don’t fully know what his dualism is all about.

 

[greylorn]

Pssh, been burned better and harder by 8 year olds. As an outdoor blue collar worker, let me imply that you need work on the insults

I consider myself suitably chastised. Although I worked my way through school on I-90 paving crews, that cement and my blood has been on the ground for 45+ years, and I’ve totally forgotten how to properly insult shovel-wielding bozos. Maybe being whacked on the head by idiot-sticks caused some loss of memory— I dunno.

Then there is the matter of context. I’ve been suspended before, and the kinds of remarks exchanged between friends on a work crew might not be welcome here.

Seriously, I’ll try to consider your comments at the specific-question level, then later, more generally.

Quantifiable scientifically/physically? No, which is what I was implying. Now if your going to suggest philosophical conceptualization is valid to quantify such a thing, then we totally agree. What I was saying to your retort earlier about photons being completely without dimension is that your using a quantifiable thing such as photons to support your argument seems out of place. Photons being without physical dimensions are still physically observable through the human apparatus of sight.

If I recall, you poo-poohed photons as an example inappropriate to a discussion of the spiritual. I claim otherwise. As further example, consider the “observability” of photons. Neither you nor I have actually seen one. Both of us believe in the reality of their existence because we believe physics’ has determined that existence. Yet not one photon has ever touched either of us at the level of brain or soul.

They get translated into biochemical signals and transmitted via an electrochemical cascade into our brains, and at the moment, God only knows (literally) how you or I manage to perceive the images they represent.

Physicists detect the effects of photons, not the photons themselves. Moreover, they have developed a dualistic wave-particle theory about the nature of photons which is totally absurd.

Similar concepts apply to soul. You may believe that you are one (or if badly confused, that you have one). But you know of its existence with less inferential reality than physics can apply to photons. You’ve never seen another soul, nor have you observed yourself at that level (unless you’ve had an OOB).

Let’s revise the question, it seems your not a full Cartesian dualist. Regardless, how do you in your own philosophy deal with the “interaction problem” that even Descartes could not overcome?

Correct, but I could be Descartes on a return trip, determined to use the physics knowledge accumulated since and largely thanks to his mathematical insights and development of a mapping system for the visual description of complex mathematics, to complete his theory and use it to fully integrate theology and physics.

Descartes knew nothing of the concept of energy. After its development, James Maxwell considered its subtle implications for the concept of soul and encoded them within his “Maxwellian demon” presentation. The basis for an explanation of the soul’s and the Creators’ relationship to energy lies in the decoding.

Details are inappropriate for this forum, but I anticipate a September publication if my editor approves of the latest chapter of a book which explains this stuff in better detail. You won’t like it, but might find it a worthy challenge.

Continued…

 

[greylorn]

Serious question, not trying to belittle you at all but have you read much of hylemorphic dualism (or Thomistic dualism)? “The person is the human being, the substantial compound of matter and form. A person is an individual substance of a rational nature, but the soul is not such a substance — for it is the rational nature, not a substance with a rational nature.”
“…intellectual activity— the forming of ideas or concepts, the making of judgments, and logical reasoning — is an essentially immaterial process, a process that is intrinsically independent of matter, however much it may be extrinsically dependent on matter for its normal operations in the human being.”

Never heard of hylemorphic dualism before you mentioned it. Except for one postgrad philosophy course, I’ve only studied the little bit of philosophy that I find interesting. I’m trying to figure out the causes and purposes behind the universe, and most philosophers are simply too ignorant of physics to be worth my time.

I’ve tried to plow through Aquinas, but I could not get far. His logic is way too peccable. I cannot sustain interest in a movie with a dumb plot, or ideas based upon faulty premises and sloppy thinking.

That leaves me ignorant as to why a number of individuals with seemingly good minds adore Aquinas, but further study of Aquinas won’t answer that question. I cannot understand how apparently intelligent people can regard Darwinism as a legitimate explanation for evolution, but studying Darwin did not help with that.

When I have had the opportunity to study, via query, specific individuals who believe in bad theories, I have found that they have some knowledge of their subject theory, and are sometimes well studied in it, but that they ignore contrary material and information which would damage their chosen belief system. So I have developed a theory which explains this, which is the best I can do on the matter.

Of course, believers in conventional doctrines cannot get through it, because even simple facts and logic that conflict with their doctrines are enough to befuddle their minds.

When studying physics I did not study phlogiston theory. That leaves me ignorant of a theory which makes no sense, and I am content with that ignorance,

Aquinas’ thoughts are derived from a complete ignorance of physics, as are most philosophers. I have yet to see, or be shown by an avid T.A. fan, that they can contribute to anything other than the ignorance and disdain for science that the Church has steadfastly maintained since his canonization.

This is two quotes out of David Oderberg"s work on hylemorphic dualism in his “Personal Identity” book. Good reading source: [David S. Oderberg Dualism.pdf](David S. Oderberg Dualism.pdf) More good reads on it are Edward Feser’s work in his blog. If you want more of a scientific approach, Gyula Klima did a good work on it fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/BODYSOUL.HTM

You wrote off Aquinas pretty quick earlier, just think you don’t fully know what his dualism is all about.

You are correct about my ignorance. But given that 50 years ago I found that the Church’s explanations of reality, including the nature and purpose of God, were inconsistent with the laws of God’s created universe, and that this ignorance follows Aquinas’ doctrines, I don’t feel a great need to study the details of Aquinas’ mistakes.
I read enough of Feser to find him worth dismissing. Do any of the others have imaginative ideas about, let’s say, exactly how the soul interfaces with the brain, or how God constructed matter and charge from unformed energy? Those are the kinds of problems that need solving, IMO.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

(hope you don’t mind, shorten up your quotes for space)

I consider myself suitably chastised. Although I worked my way through school on I-90 paving crews…Then there is the matter of context. I’ve been suspended before, and the kinds of remarks exchanged between friends on a work crew might not be welcome here.

I got some catch-up to do when seeing your shoes. Don’t take me too seriously, still a 24 year old kid in your eyes, rightly so. Everyone has to pay their dues. Besides, I must respect my elders (just kidding)

If I recall, you poo-poohed photons as an example inappropriate to a discussion of the spiritual. … Moreover, they have developed a dualistic wave-particle theory about the nature of photons which is totally absurd.

Well, we will never see a single photon (with the naked eye) but the eye is able to see the effect of millions. It is absolute that we consent they exist, not just with the simple observation but the one’s you have pointed out as well. But the inability to observe photons themselves, doesn’t mean they do not physically exist (not suggesting you say otherwise). Though, been reading up on SPD’s when you brought all this up, wondering if that will be able to observe the photon themselves.

Similar concepts apply to soul. You may believe that you are one (or if badly confused, that you have one). But you know of its existence with less inferential reality than physics can apply to photons. You’ve never seen another soul, nor have you observed yourself at that level (unless you’ve had an OOB).

See, this is where I think the stumble happens. In hylemorphic dualism, it is the belief that the soul is the form of body and the body is the matter that is directed by the soul. It is not the belief that the soul is somewhere else in other possible worlds but simply it is the immaterial nature of the body, the thing that is able to do incorporeal activities and able to operate in the corporeal world with the physical body. Also it is the belief that a soul is not a complete substance, or is the body but the fusion of the two make a complete substance. Now, concerning the soul after bodily death is something else which is answered in the links I supplied. So with this belief, it is very plausible to acknowledge the existence of a soul.

Correct, but I could be Descartes on a return trip, determined to use the physics knowledge accumulated … I anticipate a September publication if my editor approves of the latest chapter of a book which explains this stuff in better detail. You won’t like it, but might find it a worthy challenge.

I shall read it. As a Thomist, it is the general notion that mechanicalism, nature of material causes, etc… all are great but have little to do with the philosophy of the mind or application to cosmology, henology, or teleology. I tend to not use physics, biology, quantum theories, etc… in my philosophy, which is why I was questioning your use of photons in the discussion. But I am curious how you are going to apply sciences to the observation of the soul (if that’s part of the aim).

Never heard of hylemorphic dualism before you mentioned it… that they can contribute to anything other than the ignorance and disdain for science that the Church has steadfastly maintained since his canonization.

Not here to change your ways or thinking. All I’ll say is his metaphysics are built off of most of Aristotelian metaphysics. And most of it, if not all, is not concerned with modern day/nor past day notions of materialism or mechanicalism adoption into philosophy but rather the study of the final causes in things. I blame the “Enlightenment Era”.

You are correct about my ignorance. But given that 50 years ago I found … Do any of the others have imaginative ideas about, let’s say, exactly how the soul interfaces with the brain, or how God constructed matter and charge from unformed energy? Those are the kinds of problems that need solving, IMO.

Well, exactly how the soul interfaces with the body is not really an issue, but the fact that qua matter is unable to direct itself or show any signs of intentionality, intelligence, or rationality unto itself is enough to know the soul does operate the matter of living things. Which I think is the central issue of this thread, does the body still have it’s soul when brain death has occurred? When it has not shown any signs of the human soul, being intelligence and rationality. IMO, if in the future medical technology will be able to reverse this condition (whether it be 10 or 200 years from now), what’s that say when those that were “disconnected” and used for organ donations were actually still alive? Seems too shaky of grounds to be certain that the soul is no longer in the body when brain death has occurred.

And the other question is not one I’m tackling again (had same exact argument in another topic).

 

[Dan_Daly]

Simply put “brain dead” is not dead. Dead is dead, it doesn’t need a qualifier.

Listen to this, I think it’s very well stated. Education on this issue is very important- especially considering how many Catholics have driver’s licences that read “organ donor”.

audiosancto.org/sermon/20050807-Brain-Dead-Dead-Means-the-Soul-Has-Left-the-Body.html

Pax.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Heart beat is not sufficient for life, because it can actually beat without a body (or in a dead body) until it runs out of oxygen. This is in fact why they can be transplanted.

Brain function is closer to the mark, because without at least the brain stem running, body functions cannot carry on. A body whose brain is completely nonfunctional cannot hold life, even with a beating heart.

Ideally, death would not be pronounced until all the organs stopped working. But that would mean the organs would never be used.

ICXC NIKA.

I would kindly disagree with all of this.

You and I were alive before we had a heart nevermind a heartbeat. We were alive before we had a brain nevermind brain function. We were alive before we had any organs. Each of us started as a single cell. And as that single cell we were as much a living human being as we are right now. As such none of those things- brain function, heart beat, organ function, can be used as a criteria for death.

The organs were used- by the person they were in. When the “ideal” is not killing living human beings, we should not trade it away for harvesting their organs.

Pax.

 

[greylorn]

…Don’t take me too seriously, still a 24 year old kid in your eyes, rightly so. …Besides, I must respect my elders (just kidding)

As for respecting your elders, you’d be a fool to do it simply because they are old. I don’t respect the ideas of any of my elders, most of whom are about as wise and knowing as a bag of Bill Clinton’s charitably-donated skivvies. Many of us are especially ornery toward young whippersnappers like yourself, but don’t take that personally— it is an extension of regret for how we misspent our own youth. At the same time, some of us are often trying to keep you kids from repeating our follies.

Well, we will never see a single photon (with the naked eye) but the eye is able to see the effect of millions. It is absolute that we consent they exist, not just with the simple observation but the one’s you have pointed out as well. But the inability to observe photons themselves, doesn’t mean they do not physically exist (not suggesting you say otherwise). Though, been reading up on SPD’s when you brought all this up, wondering if that will be able to observe the photon themselves.

I’m guessing that SPD is an acronym for “single particle detector.” I was told that the old photomultiplier tubes we used in the late sixties were SPD’s. They did not tell us anything about a photon other than that it existed long enough to trigger the PM. I doubt that a modern SPD could do better.

A more interesting question remains: What is a photon? Surely you do not believe that the “wave-particle” duality theory serves any purpose other than to convince non-thinkers that physics actually understands what photons are?

But then, since you seem to believe that the nature of photons is unrelated to the nature of God, and may believe in the Trinity, you just might believe in wave-particle duality.

See, this is where I think the stumble happens. In hylemorphic dualism…etc. So with this belief, it is very plausible to acknowledge the existence of a soul.

I do not share this belief, yet accept the existence of soul.

I shall read it. As a Thomist, it is the general notion that mechanicalism, nature of material causes, etc… all are great but have little to do with the philosophy of the mind or application to cosmology, henology, or teleology. I tend to not use physics, biology, quantum theories, etc… in my philosophy, which is why I was questioning your use of photons in the discussion. But I am curious how you are going to apply sciences to the observation of the soul (if that’s part of the aim).

That is indeed part of my work, which involves a physics-level integration of all things “scientific” with theology and metaphysics.

Not here to change your ways or thinking. All I’ll say is his metaphysics are built off of most of Aristotelian metaphysics. And most of it, if not all, is not concerned with modern day/nor past day notions of materialism or mechanicalism adoption into philosophy but rather the study of the final causes in things. I blame the “Enlightenment Era”.

Aristotle’s physics was, in all important respects, fundamentally wrong. That sorry old nit believed that heavy objects fell faster than light objects. He set the science of physics back about 2000 years and was not corrected until Galileo proved, in a purely theoretical paper, that if heavy objects fell faster, iron would float on water.

That ought to tell you something about the value of Aristotelian metaphysics and everything derived therefrom. If you are thinking critically, of course.

 

[greylorn]

Well, exactly how the soul interfaces with the body is not really an issue, but the fact that qua matter is unable to direct itself or show any signs of intentionality, intelligence, or rationality unto itself is enough to know the soul does operate the matter of living things. Which I think is the central issue of this thread, does the body still have it’s soul when brain death has occurred? When it has not shown any signs of the human soul, being intelligence and rationality. IMO, if in the future medical technology will be able to reverse this condition (whether it be 10 or 200 years from now), what’s that say when those that were “disconnected” and used for organ donations were actually still alive? Seems too shaky of grounds to be certain that the soul is no longer in the body when brain death has occurred.

Studying your reply, I’m inclined to consider it from a wider perspective. You have adopted the usual religionist style of looking at the universe, managing to separate the fundamental understandings of science from your beliefs, as if they were unimportant.

I take the exact opposite approach, which is to distrust every word that every man has written about the nature and purpose of the Creator, irrespective of particular religion. Neither the big religions nor the little ones meet the most rudimentary criteria required by anyone who chooses to be responsible for his own thoughts.

Instead I assume that the truth about the nature of the Creator, and his purposes, can be found in one place only— the physical universe. There are no words in it invented by men.

Given the known deficiencies of humans, our stupidity, ignorance, culpability, greed, need to be always-right, I find it strange that I am the only non-atheist person I know who takes this approach.

Perhaps you can understand why I am surprised that someone with a knowledge of physics would not seek to integrate every tiny bit of this knowledge with his understanding of God, rather than to accept at face value the opinions of men who knew nothing whatsoever of physics and imagined the earth the be at the center of the universe.

Until I finish my darned book (a project I began at the age of 21) and you read it, we will be forever arguing at cross purposes, which seems to be of no value to either. After you read it, you might be the one to deal with its unanswered questions, and further the age-old inquiry into the nature and purpose of anything at all.

Should you read it, may I suggest a particular focus, specific to you. Ignore the ideas about God and soul entirely. You will reject them out of hand (explained why later in the book) and this will prevent you from seeing the material at another level, that of critical thinking in general— how do we make competent inquiries into the cores of fundamental ideas which we believe to be true but cannot empirically verify?

Put another way, you in particular should concentrate upon the book’s method, ignoring its results. Should you come to understand its method, apply that first to your own beliefs before considering a reread that engages ideas.

At that point we will have an established basis for discussing method, and should we get past that, serious metaphysics and physics, both.

 

[razredge]

I also don’t buy the concept that all human life is a human person - for me consciousness is tied to the soul and so is a necessary attribute to personhood.

So I don’t think creatures that have human DNA are necessarily human persons with souls, such as anencephalic babies or even embryos (the Church itself does not teach that ensoulment occurs at the point of conception, it leaves the point of ensoulment open to discussion)

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

A more interesting question remains: What is a photon? Surely you do not believe that the “wave-particle” duality theory serves any purpose other than to convince non-thinkers that physics actually understands what photons are?

Not going to have any certainty on them until someone finds a way to observe without collapsing the wave. Quantum eraser, right? sigh wish I had the opportunity to goto college for physics, or at least apprenticeship under a physicist

That ought to tell you something about the value of Aristotelian metaphysics and everything derived therefrom. If you are thinking critically, of course.

No one debates that some of his physics were false, but his metaphysics deserve more attention. Just an opinion though.

Studying your reply, I’m inclined to consider it from a wider perspective. You have adopted the usual religionist style of looking at the universe, managing to separate the fundamental understandings of science from your beliefs, as if they were unimportant.

Not so much a religious style, a philosophical style. Which is why I study Aquinas’s works. If I was to approach the universe from a religious point of view I wouldn’t be in philosophy boards. That inclination is more of a theologian or mystic, though I immerse myself in those fields as much as I can, I’m more drawn to the science of logic, the mind, and metaphysics.

Perhaps you can understand why I am surprised that someone with a knowledge of physics would not seek to integrate every tiny bit of this knowledge with his understanding of God, rather than to accept at face value the opinions of men who knew nothing whatsoever of physics and imagined the earth the be at the center of the universe.

It’s just I find using mechanical style of arguments to be open to accept impersonal causation and processes. I love the sciences, and applaud all who study them and try and use them to prove God. But as a (wannabe) philosopher, just very particular about what and which arguments to use.

Until I finish my darned book (a project I began at the age of 21) and you read it, we will be forever arguing at cross purposes, which seems to be of no value to either. After you read it, you might be the one to deal with its unanswered questions, and further the age-old inquiry into the nature and purpose of anything at all.

Should you read it, may I suggest a particular focus, specific to you. Ignore the ideas about God and soul entirely. You will reject them out of hand (explained why later in the book) and this will prevent you from seeing the material at another level, that of critical thinking in general— how do we make competent inquiries into the cores of fundamental ideas which we believe to be true but cannot empirically verify?

Put another way, you in particular should concentrate upon the book’s method, ignoring its results. Should you come to understand its method, apply that first to your own beliefs before considering a reread that engages ideas.

At that point we will have an established basis for discussing method, and should we get past that, serious metaphysics and physics, both.

Pinky swear, I’ll buy it and will focus on the method.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I also don’t buy the concept that all human life is a human person - for me consciousness is tied to the soul and so is a necessary attribute to personhood.

So I don’t think creatures that have human DNA are necessarily human persons with souls, such as anencephalic babies or even embryos (the Church itself does not teach that ensoulment occurs at the point of conception, it leaves the point of ensoulment open to discussion)

So if we abort early enough, abortion would be ok, under this line of thinking. That’s not what the Church teaches. Human life begins at conception. More accurately we must say human life begins at fertilization, since the medical community has changed the definition of conception to mean implantation. When you’re life begins you are a human being made in the image and likeness of God- with a soul. The soul is what makes you alive. Without a soul you could not be alive.

The idea of “consciousness” being a criteria for having a soul is an extremely dangerous one and also totally OUT of line with Church teaching…

Do the mentally retarded have souls?
Children before the age of reason?
The senile and those with dementia, alzheimers and other brain diseases?
If I’m in a football game and get knocked out with a concussion, does my soul go away while I’m unconscious, and come back when I regain consciousness?

God Bless and Pax.

 

[razredge]

So if we abort early enough, abortion would be ok, under this line of thinking. That’s not what the Church teaches. Human life begins at conception. More accurately we must say human life begins at fertilization, since the medical community has changed the definition of conception to mean implantation. When you’re life begins you are a human being made in the image and likeness of God- with a soul. The soul is what makes you alive. Without a soul you could not be alive.

The idea of “consciousness” being a criteria for having a soul is an extremely dangerous one and also totally OUT of line with Church teaching…

God Bless and Pax.

No - the Church does not teach that the soul is created at conception, it leaves the question open (wisely). time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923637,00.html
Yes, human life begins at conception, no one doubts that but human personhood doesn’t. Early term abortion is wrong because it destroys potential persons and denys them a personal existence.

The idea of the soul (or more accurately the anima) as the animating principle necessary for life is an Aristotelian idea that is unnecessary in modern scientific understanding.

The soul is the image and likeness of God, so it has to be our mind - it can’t be anything else (we certainly don’t look like God). The only other option is to tie the soul to human DNA which is arbitrary (why not chimp DNA too?) and leads to ridiculous notions like my fingernails having a soul.

Do the mentally retarded have souls?
Children before the age of reason?
The senile and those with dementia, alzheimers and other brain diseases?
If I’m in a football game and get knocked out with a concussion, does my soul go away while I’m unconscious, and come back when I regain consciousness?

Obviously yes, I said a mind or ‘consciousness’ - not intelligence.
As long as you are conscious or have the ability to be conscious in the future, you have a soul. If you are brain dead = no soul
.

 

[Dan_Daly]

As long as you are conscious or have the ability to be conscious in the future, you have a soul

So by your own definition, human beings have a soul from fertilization because the unborn child, has the ability to be conscious in the future.

Pax.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Furthermore, how does one know if a “brain dead” patient has the potential to be “conscious in the future”? Many people who were declared to be “medically dead” (following the change in definition from actual death to the current charade), are in fact- alive, and up and walking and talking. “Miraculous” recoveries happen. Some truly are miraculous no doubt. Some would instead point to a misdiagnosis of a person’s medical status by a fallible doctor. So who are we to judge the future potential consciousness of a living human being?

It’s the old:

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL

(Some are more equal than others)

From George Orwell’s famous Animal Farm.

Self inflicted mental gymnastics regarding the presence or lack of a soul in what everyone knows to be a human being, parsing between “human beings” and “persons”- these seem harmless as theological exercises on an internet forum. The reality is that these dangerous ideas have piled up mountains and mountains of human death. From slave ships and concentration camps to abortion mills and cloning labs, the idea that some human beings are “more equal” than others has shown itself for what it is over and over again:

Evil.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[greylorn]

I also don’t buy the concept that all human life is a human person - for me consciousness is tied to the soul and so is a necessary attribute to personhood.

So I don’t think creatures that have human DNA are necessarily human persons with souls, such as anencephalic babies or even embryos (the Church itself does not teach that ensoulment occurs at the point of conception, it leaves the point of ensoulment open to discussion)

Mostly in agreement with your comments.

What happens if you take the idea that soul and consciousness are interconnected, and think about exactly when a soul interacting with a human body becomes conscious?

Right about the DNA, etc. There is plenty of evidence that humans who once had souls, lost them, yet run freely around the planet.

Since when did the Church drop its opinion that the soul is not incorporated into the human fetus at the moment of conception? That’s a new one. If it has done so, when does it now declare the soul to be incorporated, officially?