The Mind vs Brain

[schaeffer]

There are other animals with extremely keen senses.

Indeed, there are animals with senses we ourselves do not posses…seeing infrared, detecting electrical impulses etc.

The most significant difference in our brains is that humans posses more processing parts of the brain, not sensory parts.

If what processes information is the mind, separate and beyond the brain, why do we need the processing parts of our brain and why does damage to them damage our ability to process?

 

[Faith1960]

Yes, of course. There is nothing in that description of brain activity that I don’t agree with. It was actually my point. We don’t perceive the outside world directly, but through sensory (name removed by moderator)ut encoded to the brain.

I don’t say that the mind is separate from the brain. It cannot be, since man is composed of body and soul, the two elements are fused into a single substance as long as we are alive. But the mind is distinct from the brain. The brain is the ultimate sense organ. The mind is a faculty of the soul, by which rational thought is possible.

So you’re saying that the mind can be in the brain?

 

[davidv]

So you’re saying that the mind can be in the brain?

No, I don’t believe that is what is being said.

 

[JimG]

So you’re saying that the mind can be in the brain?

If, as I am saying, the mind is a faculty of the soul, then it is non-material. A non-material (spiritual) thing can be said to be “in a place” to the extent that it is where it acts. So, with that understanding, yes, the mind can be “in” the brain. However, the mind, as an immaterial object, does not take up space.

 

[Faith1960]

If, as I am saying, the mind is a faculty of the soul, then it is non-material. A non-material (spiritual) thing can be said to be “in a place” to the extent that it is where it acts. So, with that understanding, yes, the mind can be “in” the brain. However, the mind, as an immaterial object, does not take up space.

OK.

 

[Michael19682]

Is the brain aware of itself, capable of unselfish love, grasping **abstract **concepts and understanding universal moral principles? Does it have free will and personality?

Well, Yes. With the exception of free will and the spiritual aspects of the above. It can’t have free will because it is a machine working under laws of nature; but then again, it is in symbiosis with the environment and free will might prove to be a form of incomprehensible mathematical complexity, maybe with a random element as it is vivified by God’s spirit when it makes decisions. Sin produces slavery, and slavery is mechanical. In it you do what you are told else suffer. Extrication from the process requires God.
Examples would be drug addiction, or other addictions where free will seems threadbare and unreachable. If you look at the recovery of people in those situations, almost always involves a spiritual principle. There is no need for mind. A brain can learn about God just fine.

 

[Faith1960]

Yes, of course. There is nothing in that description of brain activity that I don’t agree with. It was actually my point. We don’t perceive the outside world directly, but through sensory (name removed by moderator)ut encoded to the brain.

I don’t say that the mind is separate from the brain. It cannot be, since man is composed of body and soul, the two elements are fused into a single substance as long as we are alive. But the mind is distinct from the brain. The brain is the ultimate sense organ. The mind is a faculty of the soul, by which rational thought is possible./QUOTE

I think we 're saying pretty much the same thing, Jim.

 

[Faith1960]

Yes, of course. There is nothing in that description of brain activity that I don’t agree with. It was actually my point. We don’t perceive the outside world directly, but through sensory (name removed by moderator)ut encoded to the brain.

I don’t say that the mind is separate from the brain. It cannot be, since man is composed of body and soul, the two elements are fused into a single substance as long as we are alive. But the mind is distinct from the brain. The brain is the ultimate sense organ. The mind is a faculty of the soul, by which rational thought is possible.

Jim, in some ways in think we’re saying pretty much the same thing.

 

[tonyrey]

*Is the brain aware of itself, capable of unselfish love, grasping **abstract ***

The Catechism makes it clear we are made in the image of God spiritually not physically:

**365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
**
The brain doesn’t explain the spiritual powers that distinguish us from animals. Free will implies consciousness, originality and insight rather than a random physical element.

 

[tonyrey]

There are other animals with extremely keen senses.

Indeed, there are animals with senses we ourselves do not posses…seeing infrared, detecting electrical impulses etc.

The most significant difference in our brains is that humans posses more processing parts of the brain, not sensory parts.

If what processes information is the mind, separate and beyond the brain, why do we need the processing parts of our brain and why does damage to them damage our ability to process?

“we” implies that the brain is an inadequate explanation of our integrated personality.

Hume’s sceptical question “What a peculiar privilege has this little agitation of the brain which we call ‘thought’?” is clearly self-destructive. Why did he consider **his **agitations of the brain to be superior to others?

 

[Faith1960]

Everyone has given me such thoughtful responses. Anyone want to take a crack at my other thread, Prayer Studies, in the Spirituality forum?

 

[Michael19682]

The Catechism makes it clear we are made in the image of God spiritually not physically:

**365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
**
The brain doesn’t explain the spiritual powers that distinguish us from animals. Free will implies consciousness, originality and insight rather than a random physical element.

Reading what I wrote again, it is apparent that it is reasonably in line with the catechism. I think we should stop this particular line of inquiry as the terms “so profound” found in the Catechism clearly indicate that unless we read each others unique thoughts with “consciousness” and charity aimed at coming to agreement in spirit, the effort is doomed and sinfully aggressive and divisive toward all people and subjects.

 

[GEddie]

If one wishes to deny the mind as part of the “rational soul,” there are arguments for it, but Church teaching has to be contorted to make that jibe with it.

The Catholic teaching Is explicit that there is a spiritual human soul, that in addition to keeping the body alive, is endowed with intellect (mind). This soul survives bodily death, which is manifestly untrue of any brain function per se.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Michael19682]

If one wishes to deny the mind as part of the “rational soul,” there are arguments for it, but Church teaching has to be contorted to make that jibe with it.

The Catholic teaching Is explicit that there is a spiritual human soul, that in addition to keeping the body alive, is endowed with intellect (mind). This soul survives bodily death, which is manifestly untrue of any brain function per se.

ICXC NIKA.

The crux of what I was getting at is that if the intellect or mind knows what the brain knows in life through work, learning, etc., it is does so by supernatural means. The brain might be a lump of tissue, but it gets the job done and at the end of life the intellect can remain. I don’t personally see anywhere in this thread arguments in favor of a bluetooth connection between the brain and intellect or mind. The doctrinal and/or hypothetical existence of an intellect as such may serve the brain as a guiding principle that comes from the environment giving coherence to the brain’s function, perhaps; we don’t know. But as any Lenten worshiper knows, the brain is more apt to motivate behavior by your growling stomach than by the existence of the intellect.

 

[GEddie]

The crux of what I was getting at is that if the intellect or mind knows what the brain knows in life through work, learning, etc., it is does so by supernatural means. The brain might be a lump of tissue, but it gets the job done and at the end of life the intellect can remain. I don’t personally see anywhere in this thread arguments in favor of a bluetooth connection between the brain and intellect or mind. The doctrinal and/or hypothetical existence of an intellect as such may serve the brain as a guiding principle that comes from the environment giving coherence to the brain’s function, perhaps; we don’t know. But as any Lenten worshiper knows, the brain is more apt to motivate behavior by your growling stomach than by the existence of the intellect.

A “Bluetooth connection” implies that two things so connected, like an iPod and wireless headphones, are separate. Otherwise no such link would be needed.

Even though the clear Church teaching is that our mind is a process of the “rational soul”, which is spiritual, it nowhere holds that this is separate from the brain, or indeed body. Only death can separate them, and it may well be that there is then no mentation until the deceased mind receives the “spiritual body” (pneumatikon soma).

The human mind is the mind of the body; as the soul is the soul of the body. They are however distinct from their physiological underpinnings.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Michael19682]

A “Bluetooth connection” implies that two things so connected, like an iPod and wireless headphones, are separate. Otherwise no such link would be needed.

Even though the clear Church teaching is that our mind is a process of the “rational soul”, which is spiritual, it nowhere holds that this is separate from the brain, or indeed body. Only death can separate them, and it may well be that there is then no mentation until the deceased mind receives the “spiritual body” (pneumatikon soma).

The human mind is the mind of the body; as the soul is the soul of the body. They are however distinct from their physiological underpinnings.

ICXC NIKA.

I agree. Brain and mind, interchangeable terms in the sense that mind is a higher brain process than perception, sensation, etc. You however, are confusing me by saying not separate, but separable. Do you imply that death is a type of spiritual ultracentrifuge, which separates the intellect from the brain, for it to in turn receive the spiritual body.
Such contradicts my reading of 1 Cor 36-44, where I see the spiritual body not as one given in receiving, but as one made through a transformed earthly body.

 

[Michael19682]

A “Bluetooth connection” implies that two things so connected, like an iPod and wireless headphones, are separate. Otherwise no such link would be needed.

Even though the clear Church teaching is that our mind is a process of the “rational soul”, which is spiritual, it nowhere holds that this is separate from the brain, or indeed body. Only death can separate them, and it may well be that there is then no mentation until the deceased mind receives the “spiritual body” (pneumatikon soma).

The human mind is the mind of the body; as the soul is the soul of the body. They are however distinct from their physiological underpinnings.

ICXC NIKA.

1 Cor 15:36-44 (sorry for the lapse, omitted chapter, GEddie)

 

[JimG]

I agree. Brain and mind, interchangeable terms in the sense that mind is a higher brain process than perception, sensation, etc. You however, are confusing me by saying not separate, but separable. Do you imply that death is a type of spiritual ultracentrifuge, which separates the intellect from the brain, for it to in turn receive the spiritual body.
Such contradicts my reading of 1 Cor 36-44, where I see the spiritual body not as one given in receiving, but as one made through a transformed earthly body.

Well, yes–death is a rather violent event, forcibly separating the body and soul, or rather leaving the soul separated from the body which it can no longer animate because the body is irretrievably damaged.

In life, body and soul are united into one. No Bluetooth connection is needed between brain and mind, they are united–the one material, the other spiritual. In death, the soul survives because it is not material.

You can’t really analyze philosophical psychology through scriptural interpretation.

 

[Michael19682]

Well, yes–death is a rather violent event, forcibly separating the body and soul, or rather leaving the soul separated from the body which it can no longer animate because the body is irretrievably damaged.

In life, body and soul are united into one. No Bluetooth connection is needed between brain and mind, they are united–the one material, the other spiritual. In death, the soul survives because it is not material.

You can’t really analyze philosophical psychology through scriptural interpretation.

Thank you JimG. Your response is appreciated for the attentiveness it represents and for an attempt to clarify. If you would care or have the time to respond further:
Catechism says not two natures united:

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

Also, isn’t it true that philosophy is essentially in Catholicism a form of scriptural exegesis?

Just questions. I’m realizing that this topic is very abstruse. The last thing I want is to confuse myself or anyone further. Nevertheless, the subdebate and explanation opened by GEddie was fascinating. Feel free to comment further.

 

[Michael19682]

Well, yes–death is a rather violent event, forcibly separating the body and soul, or rather leaving the soul separated from the body which it can no longer animate because the body is irretrievably damaged.

In life, body and soul are united into one. No Bluetooth connection is needed between brain and mind, they are united–the one material, the other spiritual. In death, the soul survives because it is not material.

You can’t really analyze philosophical psychology through scriptural interpretation.

OK. I had a revelation on the Catechism. Not two natures united refers to PURPOSE/INTENTS/NATURAL FORCE (etc) or motives of the respective natures, and not to the means of how the natures are mixed together, which latter is true. Thus the Romans epistle stands, law of mind and law of body at war with each other. If this is true, it still remains possible that the intellect is a force animating the lump of tissue brain toward spiritual transcendence or emulation in some fashion.