To be more accurate I should say that the soul is comprised of 1)memory 2) intellect and 3) the will. (I had used the word intelligence for the word intellect in a previous post, but the Catholic Church uses the word intellect…so I should stick with the word intellect for our use, as it could mean something slightly different than intelligence.The *soul *is comprised of 1)memory 2) intelligence and 3) will…
The point of the OP was to speculate on what the relationship was between the soul and the brain, if you take for granted that there is a soul. Whether or not one believes the concept of a soul serves any purpose is a topic for another thread.It looks like you’ve already assumed the soul’s existence… A thing which is somewhat ill-defined, and not at all self evident.
Please describe some of the characteristics of the soul (without overlapping into mental functions we already know arise from the brain).
I guess you mean the soul has to have some capacity for memory, intellect, and will that is NOT wholly dependant on the physical brain? Something non-corporeal that interacts with the living brain in some way that is unable to be scientifically verified, but is real in some way?To be more accurate I should say that the soul is comprised of 1)memory 2) intellect and 3) the will. (I had used the word intelligence for the word intellect in a previous post, but the Catholic Church uses the word intellect…so I should stick with the word intellect for our use, as it could mean something slightly different than intelligence.
There is a link between memory and the brain, of course. Part of the brain’s function is to store memories for our use and benefit. Regarding the soul: our memory informs us of that which we need to know to continue in making good choices. e.g. If we recall all the many benefits our Lord has done for us, we do not allow ourselves to get hopelessly discouraged in times of trial. Another example: If we know and remember that something is a greater good than another thing and love that greater good, our will is then able to choose that greater good as something desirable.Ready, can you elaborate on the relationship between the soul and the memory? It would seem like quite a stretch to say that there is no link between the memory and the brain…
This is a very balanced approach IMO and a good guide for those with faith eneogh to accept the possibility that the soul exists and for those whose faith in the existence of the soul causes them to assume too much about what is really known empiricly.The point of the OP was to speculate on what the relationship was between the soul and the brain, if you take for granted that there is a soul. Whether or not one believes the concept of a soul serves any purpose is a topic for another thread.
IMO, if we have souls, it is impossible to conceive of them NOT sharing some of the functions related to brain function. Without the capacity to retain memory, make decisions, or think abstractly a disembodied soul seems pretty worthless.
How that would be possible I have no idea, but then again, we aren’t nearly done discovering things about physics, the brain, or any other scientific field yet so I am not willing to ditch my hope just yet! I have nothing to lose, and I’d like to think when I’m a widow, I can look forward to being with the love of my life once more instead of looking forward to a nice dirt nap.
I guess you mean the soul has to have some capacity for memory, intellect, and will that is NOT wholly dependant on the physical brain? Something non-corporeal that interacts with the living brain in some way that is unable to be scientifically verified, but is real in some way?
We don’t need to insist that the soul is the only thing behind all of these brain functions. People are born with all different capacities for intelligence, memory, etc. If we tie the soul to those, then are we saying that some souls are handicapped from conception? That their souls bear their intellectual limitation or possible psychoses right from the get-go?
There’s no need to think that just because some types of thoughts can be tied to certain locations in the brain that the physical brain itself is always the origin of those thoughts.
There is no definitive proof that the brain is all there is. No neuroscientist yet has been able to prove definitively how it is we experience subjectively, or whether we truly have free will. The nature of consciousness still seems to be a very debateable subject. Sure, you’ll have more lining up on the materialist side, but that’s the nature of scientists. It’s their job to look for explanations that can be verified and anyone with that mindset will tend to be a skeptic.
It seems safer to assume, if we believe in a soul, that our souls can affect our brains and vice versa (hence the importance of sin avoidance)and that while we live, the soul cannot experience anything we don’t (hence the lack of memory under anaesthesia?).This way doesn’t seem to contradict anything modern neuroscience has found to be accurate.
There is a link between memory and the brain, of course. Part of the brain’s function is to store memories for our use and benefit. Regarding the soul: our memory informs us of that which we need to know to continue in making good choices. e.g. If we recall all the many benefits our Lord has done for us, we do not allow ourselves to get hopelessly discouraged in times of trial. Another example: If we know and remember that something is a greater good than another thing and love that greater good, our will is then able to choose that greater good as something desirable.
Maybe that doesn’t help you too much , but I’ve got to run (to go to Mass.) Peace!
For me, the latter description just doesn’t ring true for me. If the soul is to have any value to me, it must serve a purpose for and have some correlation to my physical existence.*There is a link between memory and the brain, of course. Part of the brain’s function is to store memories for our use and benefit. Regarding the soul: our memory informs us of that which we need to know to continue in making good choices. e.g. If we recall all the many benefits our Lord has done for us, we do not allow ourselves to get hopelessly discouraged in times of trial. *
— Ready
Not to nit pick yet again, but earlier you said that “part” of the soul IS the memory. That seemed pretty definitive. Now it sounds like you’re agreeing that the memory is in fact located at least in part in the brain, but is used by the soul. So which is it? Or is their both a brain memory as well as a soul memory? If this is the case, how is it possible to distinguish between the two?
*The point of the OP was to speculate on what the relationship was between the soul and the brain, if you take for granted that there is a soul. Whether or not one believes the concept of a soul serves any purpose is a topic for another thread.
IMO, if we have souls, it is impossible to conceive of them NOT sharing some of the functions related to brain function. Without the capacity to retain memory, make decisions, or think abstractly a disembodied soul seems pretty worthless.
*
– HelenaMT
You’re right, I’ll stay on topic… I know you guys already believe in the supernatural and this is no place for anyone to try and refute that. Still, I think that if we are going to assume the existense of souls, we should be able to provide a definition that adds something to our knowledge of the mind. There needs to be a reason we suspect that naturalistic explanations are insufficient. I don’t see how it’s valuable for us just to duplicate functions of the mind that we’re already pretty sure have a materialistic basis. To me, it would be like suggesting that angels are responsible for lightning. You can’t disprove that statement, but it doesn’t have any futher explanatory power than a wholly naturalistic one. A world where angels are responsible for lightning functions in a way indistinguishable from one where they do not, and I think it’s fair to say that assigning the soul responsibility for the memory is equally ineffective in explaining anything new.
On the other hand, if I were a Christian looking at this, it would seem to be quite reasonable to expect a human without his brain (and the rest of the body) to be quite pitiful and incomplete. After all, we’re supposed to have bodies… the concept of a ghost in a shell is antiquated, and no one can seriously think any more that everything going on in our minds is distinct from the brain. Why is it unacceptable to suggest that the memories and other important functions of the mind are lost upon death, and is somehow recreated in a new body for the final judgement?
Yes, that looks like an interesting article. I got to read some of it. Peter Kreeft said that the idea of an immortal soul is a misconception that comes from Platonism and says that the soul in its natural state (without infused grace) is not immortal, but dies and remains as refuse in hell. It caught me off guard because I always heard that the soul is immortal and always had applied it to all souls, even those without divine grace in them.
I wonder whether Peter Kreeft has any evidence to support this quaint and horrific notion, or whether it’s just from his imagination.Peter Kreeft said that … the soul in its natural state (without infused grace) is not immortal, but dies and remains as refuse in hell…
Interesting idea. How does God work with spiritual minds that have never known somatic consciousness?IOn the mountain peak of the soul one can see a new horizon in the clear, upper, rarefied air of pure consciousness where one is able to guide the mind’s activities in a new direction that one has never before known. In this way God gives the spiritual mind new instincts to prepare it to move in a new spiritual consciousness.
In his book he said quote: “only God is immortal.”I wonder whether Peter Kreeft has any evidence to support this quaint and horrific notion, or whether it’s just from his imagination.
There seems to be a contradiction, yes. But what he says in both books seem to make sense. I(p.s. when you read the part in the Heaven book, and the part in the *Catholic Christianity *book, they seems somewhat contradictory. I’m not sure what is going on: imprecision of language? Development of thought? I don’t know.)