The Soul and the Brain

[MindOverMatter]

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.

Are you a mind body dualist? If so why?

Why can’t the brain just be a complex physical mesh of blind causality?

I don’t believe that it is purely physical. But i would like to see what you think.

 

[JimG]

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.

I come at it from the viewpoint of Catholic philosophy of man, which views the body as an essential aspect of our humanity.

A good deal of what we call our “personality” [as distinct from our personhood] comes from our genetics and our physical characteristics. Let me use marriage as an illustration. When one falls in love with a person and decides to marry, you marry the person you love. Not just that person’s body, and not just the soul either. The two are a unity, and are so interdependent that the soul must depend on the body for every bit of information that comes into the mind. And Aquinas defines the soul as the “life-principle” of the body, so the body depends on the soul for its very life. The soul doesn’t animate just the brain but the entire body.

From the standpoint of Catholic theology, if a person could be essentially identified with the soul and the body were only a machine to be controlled, there would be little point in the resurrection. What would “I” care that my body-machine was in a grave somewhere, it wouldn’t affect “me.” But we act and believe as though our body really is an essential part of who we are. When a person dies, a believer may be consoled to think that the soul lives on, and expect to be reunited with the deceased in heaven one day. But one hopes to be reunited with the person in his or her totality, not just the soul, because the soul is an incomplete human person.

 

[greylorn]

Are you a mind body dualist? If so why?

Why can’t the brain just be a complex physical mesh of blind causality?

I don’t believe that it is purely physical. But i would like to see what you think.

Consider this simple argument. By Catholic dogma, your soul will be rewarded or punished after death according to your actions, inactions, beliefs and disbeliefs during this life.

Your brain will not be punished after your demise. It rots with the rest of you unless you’ve chosen cremation. If you win a Nobel Prize beforehand, it may end up in a pickle jar on a laboratory shelf. Whatever, it is not going to heaven or hell or anyplace else.

Since the Church believes in a just God, it makes sense that God would only reward or condemn the entity responsible for choices and actions. If you believe that the soul is going to heaven, then it must be the entity which earned that passage.

Moreover, what value is heaven to you, or what detriment hell, if you have no continuity of consciousness between bodily life and spiritual afterlife? If your soul is going to be the repository of consciousness in heaven, must it not have been exactly that on earth? (Unless you expect God to do a Vulcan mind swap, suddenly transferring the data within your brain into some thing called soul, which somehow does, well… not much, since it doesn’t have a body anymore and hasn’t learned much about operating without one.

Consider another perspective. Suppose that I decided to become a prophet and start a new religion based upon the teaching that if you lead a good life, your pancreas will go to heaven. Do you imagine that I’d have many followers?

It is “you” who wants to go to heaven---- “you” being whatever contains your memories, understandings, and sense of self. Your brain and body stays on earth.

Unless brain and soul (Descartes mind) are in some ways functionally separate within the body, how can they be physically separate beyond it?

In the context of that understanding I am not a conventional mind-body dualist in the Cartesian style. There were flaws in those beliefs. Because of them, mind-body dualism confused the Church but left science with nothing much to grab onto. . However, Cartesian dualism has served me as a core for a more complete description of human mental processes.

 

[greylorn]

I come at it from the viewpoint of Catholic philosophy of man, which views the body as an essential aspect of our humanity.

A good deal of what we call our “personality” [as distinct from our personhood] comes from our genetics and our physical characteristics. Let me use marriage as an illustration. When one falls in love with a person and decides to marry, you marry the person you love. Not just that person’s body, and not just the soul either. The two are a unity, and are so interdependent that the soul must depend on the body for every bit of information that comes into the mind. And Aquinas defines the soul as the “life-principle” of the body, so the body depends on the soul for its very life. The soul doesn’t animate just the brain but the entire body.

From the standpoint of Catholic theology, if a person could be essentially identified with the soul and the body were only a machine to be controlled, there would be little point in the resurrection. What would “I” care that my body-machine was in a grave somewhere, it wouldn’t affect “me.” But we act and believe as though our body really is an essential part of who we are. When a person dies, a believer may be consoled to think that the soul lives on, and expect to be reunited with the deceased in heaven one day. But one hopes to be reunited with the person in his or her totality, not just the soul, because the soul is an incomplete human person.

I understand your perspective, which mirrors the teachings of the Church. I stopped being a Catholic decades ago upon taking a close look at the confusions and contradictions within the totality of religious belief, not simply the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Other religions have cleaned up a few of the classic contradictions, at the cost of adding more of their own.

I have studied a bit of physics and applied it to various sciences, as well as to belief in God and the human soul. Everything I learn indicates that we live in a created universe, learning the arts of thought and consciousness through the facility of an extraordinarily complex body which, IMO, is clearly the result of brilliant engineering.

Everything I’ve learned and am learning convinces me that all current beliefs and opinions about the origin and purpose of the universe are wrong. I do not believe in the Big Bang or Darwinian evolution. I believe in God, the energy conservation law, and infinite existence of the soul. But the properties of the Creator in Whom I believe differ from the God defined by all religious beliefs.

I do not believe in the Resurrection of the Dead into their original bodies, for the number of contradictions and inherently absurd possibilities render such a concept logically unsatisfying. (e.g. What happens to a wonderful, God-fearing woman who loved and outlived three fine, upstanding Catholic husbands? And what if two of the husbands outlived several righteous wives? Do we have the makings of a soap-opera plot or what?)

I do not believe in time-travel either, because it is illogical. I have never understood why people accept illogical ideas when better ones are available.

I have found it much easier and simpler to accept ideas about the nature of God and purpose of creation which fit perfectly with the evidence and with solid theories of science, and which are free of logical contradictions and confusions.

Correct ideas to not require the support of apologists.

 

[HelenaMT]

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?

What if the soul can only have control over a properly functioning brain? Meaning one that is able to respond to the soul’s commands. If a brain is wired so that decisions made by the soul can be overridden or ignored by the malfunctioning physical brain, then the person might not be held to the same level of culpability for his actions.

It would mean that the soul can be hijacked by the physical brain, taking it along for a bad ride,and leaving it with some wierd memories and experiences, but not necessarily negatively affecting it’s salvation.

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??

Perhaps the way changes such as the ones you mentioned affect the soul in different ways. For example, if an injury or trauma changes the brain’s chemistry, so that you prefer a different color, or music, or hobby, etc, the soul may be affected in that it has become open to some different experiences originally not desired in the first brain.

This is only as much changing the self as we do in our normal lives when we are one way as a teenager, then someone rather differently evolved as an adult.

In another example, as in Alzheimers, perhaps the soul has very little control left of his brain, and is more an observer to his last days, rather than a true participant.

As far as people with lifelong mental illnesses go, perhaps their soul cannot help but be affected eventually by the long patterns of behavior and thoughts. After all, if there is no effect on a soul by the decisions of the brain, then actions don’t matter.

So maybe there is only an effect where the soul is actually in control of the brain. In this case, then, only mental illnesses that *utterly *prevent the soul from taking action will exonerate a soul from culpability. I don’t think there are that many mental illnesses where this is truly the case, though.

And for those people whose souls are stuck with mildly malfunctioning brains ,it’s just another obstacle we need to overcome if we want to save our souls.

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?

Perhaps the illness will leave an indelible mark on the soul, since the experiences in our bodies are the only ones we have to learn from while we live.

I’m just assuming for this speculation that the only way to make sense out of mental illness is to say that there are some times where the soul is not in control AT ALL, and other times where it IS but due to it’s only learning experiences being in a defective brain, may eventually begin to consciously make poor choices.

My answer would be that if the soul retained some control over the course of the lifetime illness, then it’s “form” will resemble the person the soul wanted to be but never could fully express, and it will be stuck with a load of experiences that might feel like the experiences of a possessed person.

For some souls that might be a positive thing, but others might wind up becoming corrupted themselves over a lifetime mental illness where they had some control but never tried hard enough to override their brain’s impulses.

This seems really unfortunate, but then again, nothing in life really seems to be fair-we don’t all start out with the same potential, and don’t all have the same amount of hardships to overcome.

 

[JimG]

I do not believe in the Big Bang or Darwinian evolution. . . . . . I do not believe in time-travel either, because it is illogical. I have never understood why people accept illogical ideas when better ones are available.

Being off topic, it should probably be the subject of a different thread, but I’m wondering what problems you have with the Big Bang theory of cosmology. And I thought that time travel was merely an engineering problem.

 

[greylorn]

I come at it from the viewpoint of Catholic philosophy of man, which views the body as an essential aspect of our humanity.

A good deal of what we call our “personality” [as distinct from our personhood] comes from our genetics and our physical characteristics. Let me use marriage as an illustration. When one falls in love with a person and decides to marry, you marry the person you love. Not just that person’s body, and not just the soul either. The two are a unity, and are so interdependent that the soul must depend on the body for every bit of information that comes into the mind. And Aquinas defines the soul as the “life-principle” of the body, so the body depends on the soul for its very life. The soul doesn’t animate just the brain but the entire body.

From the standpoint of Catholic theology, if a person could be essentially identified with the soul and the body were only a machine to be controlled, there would be little point in the resurrection. What would “I” care that my body-machine was in a grave somewhere, it wouldn’t affect “me.” But we act and believe as though our body really is an essential part of who we are. When a person dies, a believer may be consoled to think that the soul lives on, and expect to be reunited with the deceased in heaven one day. But one hopes to be reunited with the person in his or her totality, not just the soul, because the soul is an incomplete human person.

RE: above conversation, separate issue.

Aquinas was a philosopher, not a god. His saying that something is so does not make it so, even if religionists agree that he was right. His opinions were those of a bright man ignorant of even the tiny amount of knowledge available to a high school science student.

The human body does not need a soul to animate it, any more so than does a tapeworm. The animation is provided by large numbers of molecular machines powered by adenosine triphosphate. The human brain does not require a soul to animate it either. However, lacking many pre-programmed instincts of the sort which guide animal behavior, the brain works best if the soul is telling it what to do, at least some of the time.

 

[greylorn]

Being off topic, it should probably be the subject of a different thread, but I’m wondering what problems you have with the Big Bang theory of cosmology. And I thought that time travel was merely an engineering problem.

Not off topic yet, since belief in the Big Bang comes from the same source as belief in God and soul— some authority figures invented a theory and were good enough to convince many others that they were right.

I dislike Big Bang theory because it is a classic scientific kludge, pretty much on a par with phlogiston. To make the post-bang mathematics work, it is necessary to fudge the speed of light. No explanation in terms of physics for why “c” changed then.

Cosmologists are as religious as you, and will invent all kinds of notions in order to protect their primary beliefs. The temporary change in the speed of light is now incorporated into a subset of Big Bang theory. It is not mentioned, because the concept has no foundation. Legitimacy of this fourth-rate kludge is conferred by the new scientific term, “inflation,” which you’ll hear on the History/Discovery channels.

A bigger issue is, what preceded the Big Bang? Until only 4-5 years ago the precursor was spoken of as a tiny lump of mass-energy. (I call this the cosmic micro-pea.) When this concept was logically proven to be absurd, the name was changed. (Are cosmologists trained in Chicago politics, or what?) The old micro-pea is now being referred to, by people who should be ashamed of themselves, as a “singularity.”

Singularities are not things. They are mathematical abstractions, solutions to equations which produce infinity as the result. One divided by zero is a singularity. The tangent of 90 degrees, likewise. Singularities are not real. It is not possible for something which actually contains matter and energy to be a singularity. Big Bang theory is a systematic con job, just like Darwinism.

Finally, why did whatever go bang, go bang? We live in a cause-effect universe. The Big Bang was an effect. So what was the cause?

 

[JimG]

RE: above conversation, separate issue.

Aquinas was a philosopher, not a god. His saying that something is so does not make it so, even if religionists agree that he was right. His opinions were those of a bright man ignorant of even the tiny amount of knowledge available to a high school science student.

The human body does not need a soul to animate it, any more so than does a tapeworm. The animation is provided by large numbers of molecular machines powered by adenosine triphosphate. The human brain does not require a soul to animate it either. However, lacking many pre-programmed instincts of the sort which guide animal behavior, the brain works best if the soul is telling it what to do, at least some of the time.

Well, I love ATP, but I never identify it with the soul. You indicate that a soul is really not needed, yet you appear to believe that humans have one.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

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? )

No, the position I have is not entirely thought out, but it comes from seeing the philosophical problems with imposing the concepts of morality and free will on persons with non-functioning brains, and from that break in reason, the implications for all brains.

That’s my educational background, so I guess that is why I phrased the issue in psychological terms. I don’t think personality and consciousness are necessarily the same. If consciousness is defined as awareness of the environment, then it could be a fundamental quality underlying a conscious personality. However, I think it’s possible for a non-conscious being to also have a personality- such as a person in a vegetative state. In that case, I am defining personality as a pattern of interpersoal, intrapersonal, and emotional reactions in relation to the external world. People in vegetative states also react predictively to external stimuli, so in a sense, could be considered to have personalities.

To the question of where consciousness resides, that is undefined by the biological sciences, but is addressed by cognitive sciences and philosophy. The closest approximation made is the position of epiphenomenalism.

I think it is more probable that reality is the inverse of epiphenomenalism, and that instead of the mind being what the brain does, the brain is what the soul does.

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?”

I don’t know. How do we know that the spiritually culpable aspect of the human being has control of their brain.

But, I really don’t think that is where the thought ends. I think, if we were to say the spirit does not have control of the body, (and answer in the negative to the question I posed, saying, no, there is no truly free will, and the human being is a brain that is genetically pre-wired to certain behaviors) then we actually just agree with the materialist perspective that spirit and soul are mental constructions used to describe introspective states, and have no real meaning.

If we say that, then we have paradoxes, such as, existence is meaningless, and yet, that is in itself an oxymoron. Nothing can exist that does not flow from some purpose, or there would be nothing (in my view).

This problem is resolved, in my view, by assuming that there is willfulness and choice in all human existence, but that it can not be found in the brain or the physical plane. Some spirits are having a human experience that is not centered and directed in the brain, I guess is what I am trying to say.

I have a loose view of human existence being something like this. Suppose we are all just like those light orbs that people see in photographs. I’m not saying that those pictures are really of anything other than dust, it’s just an analogy. That’s the spirit. It’s just a sphere of light.

When the spirit incarnates, it enters a different frequency of existence, and what happens is analogous to a ray of light moving through a prism. The bands of color emanating from the prism are the soul. The prism itself is the brain.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

What if the soul can only have control over a properly functioning brain? Meaning one that is able to respond to the soul’s commands. If a brain is wired so that decisions made by the soul can be overridden or ignored by the malfunctioning physical brain, then the person might not be held to the same level of culpability for his actions.

It would mean that the soul can be hijacked by the physical brain, taking it along for a bad ride,and leaving it with some wierd memories and experiences, but not necessarily negatively affecting it’s salvation.

Properly functioning is a social construct.

Perhaps the illness will leave an indelible mark on the soul, since the experiences in our bodies are the only ones we have to learn from while we live.

I’m just assuming for this speculation that the only way to make sense out of mental illness is to say that there are some times where the soul is not in control AT ALL, and other times where it IS but due to it’s only learning experiences being in a defective brain, may eventually begin to consciously make poor choices.

My answer would be that if the soul retained some control over the course of the lifetime illness, then it’s “form” will resemble the person the soul wanted to be but never could fully express, and it will be stuck with a load of experiences that might feel like the experiences of a possessed person.

For some souls that might be a positive thing, but others might wind up becoming corrupted themselves over a lifetime mental illness where they had some control but never tried hard enough to override their brain’s impulses.

This seems really unfortunate, but then again, nothing in life really seems to be fair-we don’t all start out with the same potential, and don’t all have the same amount of hardships to overcome.

I think this is just a reflection of social judgements about things people cannot understand. It is impossible that some people were supposed to “try harder” to not hear voices telling them to kill themselves, and went to hell because they didn’t try hard enough.

Now, if you said some people chose to experience life this way for some other spiritual reason, such as being a victim soul, perhaps.

 

[greylorn]

Well, I love ATP, but I never identify it with the soul. You indicate that a soul is really not needed, yet you appear to believe that humans have one.

That is correct.

 

[HelenaMT]

Properly functioning is a social construct.

Not always. I agree that some behavior that may be deemed abnormal or aberrant by a psychologist or by society is subjective. I was more talking about (and I guess I didn’t do a good enough job of explaining) conditions where, as in Alzheimers, the physical brain is actually malfunctioning,or other conditions where it IS the physical wiring that is causing the behavior and not the soul choosing it. I doubt anyone other than God will know for certain at this point in science when that is actually the case or not, though.

My point was more that the soul is responsible for the actions of the body, EXCEPT where it was completely unable to affect it’s actions(and I include the brain with the body). If this were not the case, sin would be irrelevant. So there must be a connection that is vitally important to the soul. If, as Jesus, said to have thought about a sin you have already committed it, then our thoughts are important to our souls as well.

I think this is just a reflection of social judgements about things people cannot understand. It is impossible that some people were supposed to “try harder” to not hear voices telling them to kill themselves, and went to hell because they didn’t try hard enough.

Now, if you said some people chose to experience life this way for some other spiritual reason, such as being a victim soul, perhaps.

If they were hearing voices and responding accordingly with NO way of knowing differently, then I would agree that they probably wouldn’t be condemned for it. But if there was any part of their soul that knew the actions were wrong and could have intervened in the body carrying out that action, it *would *be culpable.

I am certainly not making the case that the mentally ill are just mentally lazy. I was just making the point that culpability is reduced for those souls who cannot control the actions of the body due to some brain malfunction.

I believe in a linkage between the physical brain and the mind/soul where the soul directs the brain and experiences life through it, but where a physically affected brain can hinder the soul’s ability to operate freely through it, and where a soul can be affected by the consequences of a long mental illness.

Are you saying that you don’t think mental illness would have any impact on the part of you that will live on?

A soul might not be condemned for thoughts or actions it couldn’t physically control but would still have a lifetime of memories of pain or sin or confusion to contend with. I don’t see how they could lose all those memories and still be the same entity. If we don’t live on with our memories, who would we be and why would we care if we lived on?

Whatever your life experiences are, they would seem to be part of your soul’s life experiences too. How else would a soul exercise free will if not through it’s body and brain?

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Not always. I agree that some behavior that may be deemed abnormal or aberrant by a psychologist or by society is subjective. I was more talking about (and I guess I didn’t do a good enough job of explaining) conditions where, as in Alzheimers,** the physical brain is actually malfunctioning,or other conditions where it IS the physical wiring that is causing the behavior and not the soul choosing it**. I doubt anyone other than God will know for certain at this point in science when that is actually the case or not, though.

There is no such distinction at this level of analysis. It just does not exist. There have been experiments done that stimulated a part of a person’s brain. Just an average person, no identifiable disorder. The people reported the subjective experience of choosing to raise their hands. They were not choosing to raise their hands. Their brains were being stimulated. Many people who know these things conclude there there cannot possibly be an immaterial soul. I think it is just a more complex philosophical problem. At some level, our soul is probably hidden from true consciousness at various levels within individuals. I mean the type of consciousness that is eternal. That is the only way to resolve the problem.

My point was more that the soul is responsible for the actions of the body, EXCEPT where it was completely unable to affect it’s actions(and I include the brain with the body). If this were not the case, sin would be irrelevant. So there must be a connection that is vitally important to the soul. If, as Jesus, said to have thought about a sin you have already committed it, then our thoughts are important to our souls as well. If they were hearing voices and responding accordingly with NO way of knowing differently, then I would agree that they probably wouldn’t be condemned for it. But if there was any part of their soul that knew the actions were wrong and could have intervened in the body carrying out that action, it *would *be culpable. I am certainly not making the case that the mentally ill are just mentally lazy. I was just making the point that culpability is reduced for those souls who cannot control the actions of the body due to some brain malfunction. I believe in a linkage between the physical brain and the mind/soul where the soul directs the brain and experiences life through it, but where a physically affected brain can hinder the soul’s ability to operate freely through it, and where a soul can be affected by the consequences of a long mental illness.Are you saying that you don’t think mental illness would have any impact on the part of you that will live on? A soul might not be condemned for thoughts or actions it couldn’t physically control but would still have a lifetime of memories of pain or sin or confusion to contend with. I don’t see how they could lose all those memories and still be the same entity. If we don’t live on with our memories, who would we be and why would we care if we lived on? Whatever your life experiences are, they would seem to be part of your soul’s life experiences too. How else would a soul exercise free will if not through it’s body and brain?

Do I think people will be punished for thoughts and experiences resulting from mental illness that might be considered sinful by social standards? No, but I think that people who judge and ostracize the mentally ill will be held accountable for their sins against them.

There really isn’t any such thing as a “tiny part of person’s brain” that might “know something was wrong” and thus may be able to “control” the mentally ill experiences. It just doesn’t work like that. Usually the people’s sense of moral formation is entirely intact, and it makes no difference except to further torment them.

You sound like you’ve thought about some of these things in some depth, but not like you actually know any mentally ill people. I have known and worked with many severely mentally ill people.

 

[greylorn]

Angels Unaware, and HelenaMT

Are you aware that you are having a serious, intelligent, and erudite conversation about the “soul” without first taking the trouble to define it?

From here, it appears as though you are discussing the behavior of a distinct and definable entity which interacts with the human brain and is therefore as physical as the brain itself (physical— meaning subject to the laws of physics).

Most other posters on this site regard the soul differently, as a non-physical “spirit” which imparts to the body some vague principle of animation which other critters seem to do quite well without. They (other posters, not the critters) will be confused by a discussion at the level of apparent Cartesian dualism.

I’m inviting the two of you to get together and define precisely what you mean by soul. Others will learn from your contributions.

 

[HelenaMT]

Angels Unaware, and HelenaMT

Are you aware that you are having a serious, intelligent, and erudite conversation about the “soul” without first taking the trouble to define it?

From here, it appears as though you are discussing the behavior of a distinct and definable entity which interacts with the human brain and is therefore as physical as the brain itself (physical— meaning subject to the laws of physics).

Most other posters on this site regard the soul differently, as a non-physical “spirit” which imparts to the body some vague principle of animation which other critters seem to do quite well without. They (other posters, not the critters) will be confused by a discussion at the level of apparent Cartesian dualism.

I’m inviting the two of you to get together and define precisely what you mean by soul. Others will learn from your contributions.

I guess I define the soul as a physical entity. Not physical in the sense that it is made of the meat in the brain, but that it is causing a physical reaction in the brain in order to control an action and so must have a physical component of some sort.

Why do I believe this? Because if it is not interacting with the matter our brains are made of, it is meaningless to speak of holding it accountable for anything in an afterlife. It has to be integral to our physical life(our “thought” life included) or the whole sin concept means nothing.

If it had NO physical interaction with our conscious minds and physical bodies, it is also meaningless to speak of it surviving after death in a form that could conceivably hold our memories. Where would our memories reside, if not with the soul? So the soul must have an integral relationship with our memory making apparatus, the brain.

I see the soul as working in tandem with our brains throughout our lives to create a good or a bad life, and I see mental illnesses as conditions that sometimes hinder the soul’s ability to act through our brains, and sometimes cause a soul to adopt the thought patterns that become ingrained over a lifetime. If you are unlucky enough to be born with a damaged brain, or develop one later, your soul will have a tougher time making the right choices, and at times may have no control whatsoever.

What God does with these situations, I have no idea, but I would hope He would be understanding of the extenuating circumstances.

To use an Alzheimer’s example, the brain’s connectors are actually breaking down, so that their thoughts can’t follow the same neural pathways as a healthy brain. The soul, then, is unable to use the brain in the same way, because it is no longer functioning properly. The soul can no longer communicate it’s will through that person, nor be held accountable if the person commits a violent act not under the soul’s control. I believe that the soul’s actions can be limited by the body’s shortcomings.

I do not believe the soul “animates” the body, but I think the body(brain included, obviously) imparts knowledge to the soul that it couldn’t get anywhere else, and helps to form it into what it will become when disembodied later.

Do I think the soul is bound by the laws of physics? Yes. Not laws we know, but if you accept that God created the laws of His universe, there must be laws related to souls that He created as well.

 

[JimG]

I do not believe the soul “animates” the body, but I think the body(brain included, obviously) imparts knowledge to the soul that it couldn’t get anywhere else, and helps to form it into what it will become when disembodied later.

Do I think the soul is bound by the laws of physics? Yes. Not laws we know, but if you accept that God created the laws of His universe, there must be laws related to souls that He created as well.

If the soul is a physical entity now, what is meant by it becoming “disembodied” later?

If the soul is subject to the laws of physics it must be material (matter/energy) and thus ought to be in some way measurable as it escapes the body upon death.

And if it is material, it essentially is composed of parts, whether particles, waves, or strings, and is thus subject to decomposition, and not destined for eternal life of any sort.

However, the way you describe it sounds very much like the way that Aquinas would describe the soul of an animal, which he did consider to be material, and not something which perseveres after death.

I consider the (human) soul to be integrated with the body while not being material. As an analog, we believe that God is pure spirit, not existing in or partaking of space or time, and yet interacting with matter.

 

[HelenaMT]

If the soul is a physical entity now, what is meant by it becoming “disembodied” later?

If the soul is subject to the laws of physics it must be material (matter/energy) and thus ought to be in some way measurable as it escapes the body upon death.

And if it is material, it essentially is composed of parts, whether particles, waves, or strings, and is thus subject to decomposition, and not destined for eternal life of any sort.

However, the way you describe it sounds very much like the way that Aquinas would describe the soul of an animal, which he did consider to be material, and not something which perseveres after death.

I consider the (human) soul to be integrated with the body while not being material. As an analog, we believe that God is pure spirit, not existing in or partaking of space or time, and yet interacting with matter.

I don’t understand how, if completely immaterial, the soul can interact with the brain at all. I’m not arguing that we can measure it at the moment with any tools at our disposal, but that it has some form of existence that connects with the physical, maybe some form of energy. Not being a physicist, any specific scientific explanations I may think up will be sketchy, so I won’t bother.

But it seems that for the soul to have a role in controlling our actions, it must have a connection to the part of us that makes decisions, the brain, and it must be in some part physical in order to cause a physical reaction in the brain.

If it is true that energy cannot be created or destroyed, perhaps the soul is some sort of energy as yet undetected? (see what I mean about sketchy? )

 

[JimG]

But it seems that for the soul to have a role in controlling our actions, it must have a connection to the part of us that makes decisions, the brain, and it must be in some part physical in order to cause a physical reaction in the brain.

I do think that it has a connection, but that the connection is non-physical. Or to put it another way, the body-end of the connection is necessarily physical, the soul-end of the connection is necessarily spirit.

But again, when I speak that way, it does sound dualistic, and I am not a dualist. I think that the soul and body are so closely enmeshed that they simply cannot be torn apart, except by death. The intellect, as a function of the soul, provides the process of abstraction, forming concepts devoid of the matter that was in the senses.

 

[HelenaMT]

There is no such distinction at this level of analysis. It just does not exist. There have been experiments done that stimulated a part of a person’s brain. Just an average person, no identifiable disorder. The people reported the subjective experience of choosing to raise their hands. They were not choosing to raise their hands. Their brains were being stimulated. Many people who know these things conclude there there cannot possibly be an immaterial soul. I think it is just a more complex philosophical problem. At some level, our soul is probably hidden from true consciousness at various levels within individuals. I mean the type of consciousness that is eternal. That is the only way to resolve the problem.

The limited articles I have read on experiments like these showed that while people saw and did certain actions while their brains were being stimulated, they were aware that they were being manipulated and not consciously making the choices. Not being a doctor, I don’t have the same scope of information open to me, but it actually wouldn’t change my point.

For the connection between the mind/soul and the brain to have any point, the brain has to be under at least partial, sometime control of the soul. There is no other part of us that responds to moral questions other than the brain, so if the soul is controlling anything it must be the brain.

If not, then the soul seems a meaningless concept, not rooted in anything other than wishful thinking(which for all I know, it might be).

If the soul is not at all responsible for moral decisions, why would it be what is held accountable when we die?

Do I think people will be punished for thoughts and experiences resulting from mental illness that might be considered sinful by social standards? No, but I think that people who judge and ostracize the mentally ill will be held accountable for their sins against them.

I quite agree that treating the mentally ill unfairly is wrong. And as I said in my post, I don’t think God would judge someone’s soul for the actions of their malfunctioning physical brain. But sin is still sin. It’s not any less so for someone who lacks the ability to know better. It’s just more excuseable. And only God will know at the end what was really sin, and what was just behavior society didn’t like. We won’t know to what degree the soul actually had a part in every act of decision making.

There really isn’t any such thing as a “tiny part of person’s brain” that might “know something was wrong” and thus may be able to “control” the mentally ill experiences. It just doesn’t work like that. Usually the people’s sense of moral formation is entirely intact, and it makes no difference except to further torment them.

You sound like you’ve thought about some of these things in some depth, but not like you actually know any mentally ill people. I have known and worked with many severely mentally ill people.

I have, and have had, family members with varying degrees of mental illness that still allowed them to remain somewhat functional,except for one who succumbed to Alzheimers, but it’s not really relevant to my point.

If the sense of moral formation is indeed intact,as you mentioned, yet they still carry out wrong actions, then couldn’t God judge whether they gave in to sin, or were actually forced to sin by their errant brains?

I don’t believe that the soul is the “tiny part of person’s brain” that might “know something was wrong” . I don’t think the soul is a physical “meat” part of the brain at all. I do think for the concept of a soul to have any meaning or purpose, it has to fulfill some meaningful part of human existence.

It seems like you are saying that to someone who is mentally ill, a soul does not have as important a role to play. If a person truly lacks all free will due to their mental illness, what is the point of that soul? If it is completely powerless to affect actions, is it just “along for the ride”? What would such a soul look like after death if not at least a compilation of the memories and experiences it had in life? What other memories or experiences could it have ? Is it compiling experiences elsewhere, without our conscious knowledge?

I have a hard time believing in a soul that is utterly detached from our conscious mind. In fact, I believe for the whole concept to have value, it MUST have a relation to our conscious mind.

When you say "At some level, our soul is probably hidden from true consciousness at various levels within individuals " what does that mean?

The way I make sense out of it is to think that we are unaware of the defining line between physical brain and soul while we are alive, and perhaps we need to accept that. But to think they are so separated as to have no effect on one another seems to deny the importance of having a soul at all.