The Soul and the Brain

[Benadam]

I’m finding it a bit difficult to grasp exactly what your saying here. I don’t mean to be rude, but is it possible for you break it down into more digestible chunks? Please.

It’s almost metaphysical. According to this thinking there is an invisible plane that manifest matter. On this plane there is only vibration. No matter causing the vibration but the vibration causing matter. The emergence of photons would be manifested by a frequency of vibration reached and then another vibration as the universe expands manifests helium and so on. I am just a reader of these things so I have an elementary understanding. The universe as a singularity would have a single vibration which kinda makes sense since I can’t make sense out of a singularity either. In a way at a deeper plane of creation is a type of sound. Trumpets?..

 

[Benadam]

Thanks. So you think that my idea unites theology and science in a positive way? Or have i miss read you?

I understood what you were saying and St Thomas said the same thing.
That the soul knows in a like manner as angels which know things in their essence but the body doesn’t know the essence of things but knows them …objectively? can’t remember the exact term…but you were saying the same thing . Yes I thought you were doing it on purpose. Very positive because the concepts had the same relationship. Binary code would be the bodies way of knowing ( the term aquinas used I can’t remember) and the reality of the binary code is how you expressed as proper to the souls way of knowing. Very good I think.

 

[MindOverMatter]

In a way at a deeper plane of creation is a type of sound. Trumpets?..

Ohhhhhh. You mean that science has found out that we are made out of music!

I wonder what it would sound like. Was it a C-sharp or a D-minor?

 

[Benadam]

Ohhhhhh. You mean that science has found out that we are made out of music!

I wonder what it would sound like. Was it a C-sharp or a D-minor?

must be the heavenly choirs

 

[MindOverMatter]

I understood what you were saying and St Thomas said the same thing.
That the soul knows in a like manner as angels which know things in their essence but the body doesn’t know the essence of things but knows them …objectively? can’t remember the exact term…but you were saying the same thing . Yes I thought you were doing it on purpose. Very positive because the concepts had the same relationship. Binary code would be the bodies way of knowing ( the term aquinas used I can’t remember) and the reality of the binary code is how you expressed as proper to the souls way of knowing. Very good I think.

I didn’t know that. But I’m glad that me and Aquinas are thinking along the same lines. It means that I’m progressing in my understanding of things; and this also means that I’m one step closer to my unreachable dream of being a great philosopher/theologian. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I feel positive. I must read more of Aquinas!

Peace.

 

[JimG]

It doesn’t make sense to me that the human brain receives “images” of things as they actually are.

I think that the brain receives mathematical codes, equations or markers, which represent various aspects of objective reality. I also believe that when we receive these codes they are automatically converted into the images they represent, by our perceptive intellect; which is then acted upon by our will. What I’m trying to say is that the soul has an innate capacity to perceive the true reality of the code. If we allow for the existence of a transcendent reality of ideas which relate in some way to the various codes we receive, then perhaps the mind automatically matches these ideas with the various binary codes that our brains accept; which then appears to us as the objective reality from which the code was taken.

I know its crazy; but hey, how else does the brain know how to convert “light energy” in to consistent experiences in such a coherent manner?

Any comments? What do you think of my idea?

I think I pretty much agree with what you say here. The brain is simply an organ of integration; it doesn’t necessarily operate akin to a computer using binary code. I suspect it is more complex than that. And it is to a certain extent flexible. After a brain injury, some parts of the brain may be trained to handle sensory (name removed by moderator)uts which they normally don’t.

All the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut gets funnelled into that integrating organ, and it is all material in some manner–matter or energy. But the mind (or intellect) which is non-material, is what makes sense out of the integrated data, and it does this by in effect sucking all the matter out of it, leaving only the essence or idea. That’s a metaphysical, not a scientific, concept.

And yes, I do agree that we are created in such a way that the outside world will be intelligible to our mind. Our minds are meant to conform to and to perceive reality.

It is noteworthy that none of what gets into our brain is the same as what initially touched our senses. The brain doesn’t take in photon hits on the retina, or tactile or olfactory sensations, or the direct (name removed by moderator)ut of any sense organ. It only takes in the nervous impulses resulting from that.

That ultimate data that ends up in the brain is, I suppose, what Aquinas would call the appearances or accidents. It is the mind, after abstracting from the accidents, which perceives the substance or essence.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

The soul (which is spirit) is the animating principle of the entire body, not just of the brain. Although the soul animates the entire body, it does not occupy space, again because it is a spiritual entity.

**Intellect (or mind) and Will are faculties of the soul. The intellect is able to manipulate ideas and concepts. **

But how do concepts get from the body to the soul? That is more speculative.

One might consider the entire sensory system as an (name removed by moderator)ut system to the brain, and the brain as a coordinating system for those (name removed by moderator)uts. But to get into the (immaterial) mind, all matter must be stripped from the (name removed by moderator)ut, leaving only the idea. That part can ‘get into’ the mind, which is a faculty of the soul. The process of removing material components from sensory (name removed by moderator)ut is called abstraction.

The above statement in bold is philosophically problematic for me. Ironically, I have been pondering this question for a while, and came here to begin a thread on this subject. I am glad to see there is already one going.

My question boils down to this: where does the personality reside? Or perhaps ego is a better word? Traditionally, I think a lot of people have considered the ego and soul to be linked, if not the same.

And yet, I think the ego, or the personality, cannot be the soul. If it is, then we cannot resolve the problem of mental illness and dramatic personality change related to dementia and Alzheimer’s.

The first philosophical problem is that we witness people who willfully engage in destructive behavior, who are tormented, etc., with brain problems. In a person we do not perceive as having a “brain problem”, we would consider destructive actions “sinful”. We would consider their “lack of peace” as evidence of a the lack of God in their lives. And yet, we know that this is not the case. Their symptoms are directly caused by the malfunctioning of their brains.

There is always the argument the seriously mentally ill and those with dementia and Alzheimer’s cannot be held responsible for their actions, but that doesn’t really get to the point. If they cannot be held responsible for their actions because of the condition of their brain, then how do we know that any person truly has control of their brain?

The second philsophical problem with linking the ego and the soul is that it is known that changes that occur after head injuries or other events can dramatically change the personality, sometimes in completely innocuous ways. People who liked yellow and country music suddenly like dark colors and theatre. It is like the former “self” has died, but their body still lives, and a new “self” inhabits it.

There are also documented cases of multiple personality disorder. In these cases, personalities have different hand-writing, different IQs, different skills- truly as if another person is within the body. Assuming these conditions cannot all be the result of demon possession (I do not believe they can), then how can there be a 1:1 correlation between the soul and the body, let alone a correlation between the personality and the soul?

And yet, if we are not our ego, and not our personality, what are we when we leave this body? How could a person with life-long schizophrenia, (as an aside, an entirely different brain illness with nothing to do with multiple personality disorder) whose personality and life are totally defined by the limitations within their brains be recognized in soul form without the illness?

 

[davidv]

The above statement in bold is philosophically problematic for me. Ironically, I have been pondering this question for a while, and came here to begin a thread on this subject. I am glad to see there is already one going.

Why is this a problem? This view of the soul has been around since at least the time of Aquinas.

My question boils down to this: where does the personality reside? Or perhaps ego is a better word? Traditionally, I think a lot of people have considered the ego and soul to be linked, if not the same.

My personal opinion is that personality is not a thing, and so does not reside anywhere. Personality is simply a collection of traits and behaviors that others and yourself observe.

{snip}

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Why is this a problem? This view of the soul has been around since at least the time of Aquinas.

My personal opinion is that personality is not a thing, and so does not reside anywhere. Personality is simply a collection of traits and behaviors that others and yourself observe.

It’s a problem because if it is true, then when a mentally ill person is manipulative, aggressive, harrassing, violent, paranoid… whatever… and we agree those qualities are controlled by the intellect and will, (or lack thereof), then we also say that the person’ eternal soul is engaging in these behaviors. If the person’s eternal soul is engaging in those behaviors, then there is the problem of figuring out if this is a spiritual issue, implying sin, or not.

You certainly wouldn’t say a woman with Alzheimer’s who was a saint before her illness and then begins spitting on people and destroying things as her brain deteriorates is sinning. Her brain is deteroriating and it’s outside of her control. Nobody has any problem with this example, but this is an extreme example. What about less clear-cut cases, like chronically mentally ill people who engage in horrible behaviors. It begs the question, how much is actually under our control, which begs the question, does something have to be under our control for it to be sinful?

I don’t know the answers, I was just interested in what other people thought.

 

[Benadam]

Theologians grapple with the changing state of seperatedness of body from soul. In cases of confirmed psychological disorders culpability is reduced in the measure the disorder robs freedom of will and the ability to reason. Trauma induced personality disorders on the other hand cry out for healing because they cry out for justice and mercy. These are symptoms that obscure the boundary lines that are bold and easily seen when the body serves the will. Adam and Eve had that kind of boundary to cross. But our fallen condition is inherently a degree og deadness in the degree the body suffers seperation of the soul.

A good question asked in another post (PP) what am I made of and what part of it is really me.

There is something called a Fundamental Option that because it’s possible to excuse culpability altogether in some cases it can be abused. Pope JPII warned theologians of it’s dangers in his book Splendor of Truth. This option is made by the soul independent of the faculties of the body. That is an option that is made by who we are in the thickets of what our body does.

I think clues to the brain soul connection would be in what has been discovered about it through the various diciplines that study the boundary line of matter.

What’s between the smallest particles of matter? how small does stuff get and what’s between stuff? At that place one possible environment science see’s is full of strings vibrating but the strings don’t exist in a way they can define. I think all they see is vibration and must imagine a string so they don’t go over the edge.

Quantum physicists have observed matter that is defined by the observer. What it is was relative to who was observing it and was different for one observer than for another. Some kinda place where matter is what we make it.

:twocents:

.

 

[JimG]

I would say that the “person” is mainly resident in the soul, whereas the “personality” largely resides in the body. The personality is the result of a complex variety of factors, many of which, as you noted, are physical, chemical, or brain related. At the same time, that within each person which says “I” is a subject of action, and the subject of intellect and will, and thus a resident of the soul.

However, I don’t really like to phrase it in this way, because speaking from the perspective of Catholic philosophy a human being is a not a duality, but a true unity composed of body and soul, a composite of matter and spirit.

Body and soul are so intimately bound together that they can only be separated by being ripped apart in death.

A soul without a body, is not strictly speaking, a full human being or a full human person. What and who we are is an intimate composite of two seemingly disparate substances–matter and spirit.

So of course, brain function and personality will be affected by brain disorders and chemical disorders, and physical disorders. But underlying all that is the aspect of us which is pure spirit and thus not subject to physical disorder, except to the extent that it is affected by what comes to it through the senses. (Wasn’t it Aquinas who said, 'there is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses"?

The soul, while not subject to physical disorder (because it has no physical components) is nevertheless subject to moral disorder.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

So of course, brain function and personality will be affected by brain disorders and chemical disorders, and physical disorders. But underlying all that is the aspect of us which is pure spirit and thus not subject to physical disorder, except to the extent that it is affected by what comes to it through the senses. (Wasn’t it Aquinas who said, 'there is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses"?

If you took out the qualifier, “disorder”, would this still be true? So many aspects of who a person is can be demonstrated to be physically determined by genetic expression of the brain. I think you are probably right. The personality is probably a function of the brain, and not the same thing as pure spirit. But is it the same thing as the soul? This is something I am not sure of, because our theology requires that the soul be a freely acting agent.

If that is true, and if it is also true that behavior and preference and inner state is not always under our free will, then maybe there is something to the idea that the soul helps choose how it will manifest as a body (and brain) before life.

I don’t think this is really opposed to Catholic theology, though it may be, since I think there is the idea that the soul is not pre-existent. However, maybe the human spirit is pre-existent, and then becomes fused with the body and soul in life.

The soul, while not subject to physical disorder (because it has no physical components) is nevertheless subject to moral disorder.

How can you truly tell the difference?

 

[JimG]

Yes, it is true even with no “disorder.” There’s no doubt that the physical affects the mental. Nobody is just pure spirit. And I agree that because of this connection, we are quite often less free than we may suppose, and that does affect the moral culpability (or moral credit) of our actions. Even “spiritual execrices” have a physical component, training the mind and will through the body.

I don’t think one could exclude the spirit without becoming pretty much determinist, nor can one exclude the physical without viewing humans as just spirits operating a machine. But the interaction of the two is elusive.

 

[greylorn]

RE: The OP.

The mathematician/philosopher Rene Descartes (the inventor of Cartesian coordinates and analytic geometry) had some excellent insights into the question you ask.

An updated version can be found in an obscure novel, “The Soul of Anna Klane.”

 

[ilovekittens]

The above statement in bold is philosophically problematic for me. Ironically, I have been pondering this question for a while, and came here to begin a thread on this subject. I am glad to see there is already one going.

My question boils down to this: where does the personality reside? Or perhaps ego is a better word? Traditionally, I think a lot of people have considered the ego and soul to be linked, if not the same.

And yet, I think the ego, or the personality, cannot be the soul. If it is, then we cannot resolve the problem of mental illness and dramatic personality change related to dementia and Alzheimer’s.

The first philosophical problem is that we witness people who willfully engage in destructive behavior, who are tormented, etc., with brain problems. In a person we do not perceive as having a “brain problem”, we would consider destructive actions “sinful”. We would consider their “lack of peace” as evidence of a the lack of God in their lives. And yet, we know that this is not the case. Their symptoms are directly caused by the malfunctioning of their brains.

There is always the argument the seriously mentally ill and those with dementia and Alzheimer’s cannot be held responsible for their actions, but that doesn’t really get to the point. If they cannot be held responsible for their actions because of the condition of their brain, then how do we know that any person truly has control of their brain?

The second philsophical problem with linking the ego and the soul is that it is known that changes that occur after head injuries or other events can dramatically change the personality, sometimes in completely innocuous ways. People who liked yellow and country music suddenly like dark colors and theatre. It is like the former “self” has died, but their body still lives, and a new “self” inhabits it.

There are also documented cases of multiple personality disorder. In these cases, personalities have different hand-writing, different IQs, different skills- truly as if another person is within the body. Assuming these conditions cannot all be the result of demon possession (I do not believe they can), then how can there be a 1:1 correlation between the soul and the body, let alone a correlation between the personality and the soul?

And yet, if we are not our ego, and not our personality, what are we when we leave this body? How could a person with life-long schizophrenia, (as an aside, an entirely different brain illness with nothing to do with multiple personality disorder) whose personality and life are totally defined by the limitations within their brains be recognized in soul form without the illness?

These are very good questions, ones I have pondered. They cause me to question my faith, because I don’t know where “free will” is supposed to enter the equation, when we recognize that some people (with dementia, psychosis, brain injury, etc) can’t really be held culpable for their actions. Without free will, Christian dogma is meaningless. But beyond this segment of the human population with overt organic brain disease, there are many, many other people whose brains are not quite right, even if they do not have a diagnosable neurological or psychiatric disease. These are people who have lived a life of negative experiences and who, to our eyes, make poor (“sinful”) choices. As an example, on the news the other day, a 22 year-old single mother was arrested for shaking her baby to death. My first reaction was disgust, horror, and a desire to see this person punished to the full extent of the law. But it’s easy to imagine her background - neglected as a child herself by alcoholic parents, poorly educated, unemployed, involved in an abusive relationship, addicted to drugs, etc - and in the very moment when the young child she really didn’t want wouldn’t stop crying, she just shook him without any forethought. If my “soul” had been born into her body and experienced every single moment of her sad life up the point when her baby was crying, would I have done otherwise? I can’t imagine so.

 

[greylorn]

The above statement in bold is philosophically problematic for me. Ironically, I have been pondering this question for a while, and came here to begin a thread on this subject. I am glad to see there is already one going.

My question boils down to this: where does the personality reside? Or perhaps ego is a better word? Traditionally, I think a lot of people have considered the ego and soul to be linked, if not the same.

And yet, I think the ego, or the personality, cannot be the soul. If it is, then we cannot resolve the problem of mental illness and dramatic personality change related to dementia and Alzheimer’s.

The first philosophical problem is that we witness people who willfully engage in destructive behavior, who are tormented, etc., with brain problems. In a person we do not perceive as having a “brain problem”, we would consider destructive actions “sinful”. We would consider their “lack of peace” as evidence of a the lack of God in their lives. And yet, we know that this is not the case. Their symptoms are directly caused by the malfunctioning of their brains.

There is always the argument the seriously mentally ill and those with dementia and Alzheimer’s cannot be held responsible for their actions, but that doesn’t really get to the point. If they cannot be held responsible for their actions because of the condition of their brain, then how do we know that any person truly has control of their brain?

The second philsophical problem with linking the ego and the soul is that it is known that changes that occur after head injuries or other events can dramatically change the personality, sometimes in completely innocuous ways. People who liked yellow and country music suddenly like dark colors and theatre. It is like the former “self” has died, but their body still lives, and a new “self” inhabits it.

There are also documented cases of multiple personality disorder. In these cases, personalities have different hand-writing, different IQs, different skills- truly as if another person is within the body. Assuming these conditions cannot all be the result of demon possession (I do not believe they can), then how can there be a 1:1 correlation between the soul and the body, let alone a correlation between the personality and the soul?

And yet, if we are not our ego, and not our personality, what are we when we leave this body? How could a person with life-long schizophrenia, (as an aside, an entirely different brain illness with nothing to do with multiple personality disorder) whose personality and life are totally defined by the limitations within their brains be recognized in soul form without the illness?

This is the most clear and intelligent presentation of Ideas that I’ve found on this site. Every idea, every conflict you explain must be examined and understood if we are ever to understand our own existence.

I love to argue, and read this 3x looking for gobbledegook. You’ve clearly studied these questions, and I’d be surprised if you have not formed your own opinions. I’m curious as to whether they are cast in mental cement, or as open to conversation as this post. Where might I find them?

I think that between us we might successfully answer your questions. First, certain common grounds must be established for the conversation. My favorite is the definition of physical, and the distinction between the terms “physical” and “material,” which most people regard as synonymous. The “soul” is not material, but since it is interfaced to a physical brain, it is, by definition, physical.

If you are okay with that, we can move on to the next step, which is a functional definition of “soul.”

A sideways thought: You’ve posed your question in a psychologist’s terms (where does the personality reside?) but I’m curious as to why you did not ask, where does human consciousness reside? (Or, as a non-psychologist might put it, what is the mechanism which is conscious? )

Consider your question, “…then how do we know that any person truly has control of their brain?” The general understanding of “person” is of a human being complete with body and brain. That is clearly not your use of “person” in your question.

Were you to analyze your own question in more depth, would you put a different word or phrase in place of “person?”

 

[greylorn]

Yes, it is true even with no “disorder.” There’s no doubt that the physical affects the mental. Nobody is just pure spirit. And I agree that because of this connection, we are quite often less free than we may suppose, and that does affect the moral culpability (or moral credit) of our actions. Even “spiritual execrices” have a physical component, training the mind and will through the body.

I don’t think one could exclude the spirit without becoming pretty much determinist, nor can one exclude the physical without viewing humans as just spirits operating a machine. But the interaction of the two is elusive.

JimG
What is the matter with a view of man as a spook running a machine?

I’ve had various opportunities to run interesting machines, and those that come up at the moment are the backhoe and horse. By way of analogy for a soul controlling the body, imagine trying to make a living operating a backhoe which had its own computer control system which acted like an ornery horse which does not much care for holes in the ground, but has a fondness for warm barns, bags of oats, and other horses of the opposite sex.

If this analogy doesn’t make sense, hey, horses and backhoes are available for rent.

 

[RobbyS]

It’s a problem because if it is true, then when a mentally ill person is manipulative, aggressive, harrassing, violent, paranoid… whatever… and we agree those qualities are controlled by the intellect and will, (or lack thereof), then we also say that the person’ eternal soul is engaging in these behaviors. If the person’s eternal soul is engaging in those behaviors, then there is the problem of figuring out if this is a spiritual issue, implying sin, or not.

You certainly wouldn’t say a woman with Alzheimer’s who was a saint before her illness and then begins spitting on people and destroying things as her brain deteriorates is sinning. Her brain is deteroriating and it’s outside of her control. Nobody has any problem with this example, but this is an extreme example. What about less clear-cut cases, like chronically mentally ill people who engage in horrible behaviors. It begs the question, how much is actually under our control, which begs the question, does something have to be under our control for it to be sinful?

I don’t know the answers, I was just interested in what other people thought.

For there to be sin, there must be consent.

 

[RobbyS]

JimG
What is the matter with a view of man as a spook running a machine?

I’ve had various opportunities to run interesting machines, and those that come up at the moment are the backhoe and horse. By way of analogy for a soul controlling the body, imagine trying to make a living operating a backhoe which had its own computer control system which acted like an ornery horse which does not much care for holes in the ground, but has a fondness for warm barns, bags of oats, and other horses of the opposite sex.

If this analogy doesn’t make sense, hey, horses and backhoes are available for rent.

You mean the Cartesian notion of the body as a machine directed by the soul?

 

[greylorn]

You mean the Cartesian notion of the body as a machine directed by the soul?

Not really. And in a broader context, yes. Just as Descartes’ invention of the basic x-y-z linear coordinate system opened the idea-space for more exotic ways of looking at space and time (e.g. Riemann geometry), his basic concept of soul as mind was an equally insightful and, IMO, downright brilliant starting point.

If might have been pursued by Church theologians, but was not developed by them or anyone else. I never understood why not.

Whatever the mind may be, it seems to learn effectively from real world experience. Horses and backhoes are still available for rent.