The Soul and the Brain

[liquidpele]

“affected” is the significant word". It shows that TIC are related to physical events but not caused by them.

The fact that addiction has physical causes does not imply that all mental activity has physical causes. If it did, you (and I and everyone else) would have no control over our thoughts or anything else!

True, it does only show effect. However, to me the effect denotes cause - at minimum it certainly supports the notion.

No control over thoughts or anything else huh? Truth is, we have less than we think we do.

 

[tonyrey]

True, it does only show effect. However, to me the effect denotes cause - at minimum it certainly supports the notion.

I agree but the question is what is the cause of TIC?

No control over thoughts or anything else huh? Truth is, we have less than we think we do.

Again I agree but even a little control requires explanation.

 

[liquidpele]

I agree but the question is what is the cause of TIC?

Again I agree but even a little control requires explanation.

You’re asking for cause and explanation of something not completely understood yet. Sure, we know a decent amount and have some evidence that points us in certain directions, but we haven’t figured it out 100% yet. Discovery and searching for answers is the exciting part of science though!

 

[mikespenard]

I had started another thread, but after seeing this thread I’ll post here too. Forgive the double postings =)

memeoid.net/books/Spenard/Spenard-Dueling_with%20Dualism-DRAFT.pdf

An attempt at explaining, comprehensively, the likelyhood for there to be souls, spirits, ghosts etc. of a non-physical nature. And a hint of an alternative way to think about the mind and self. For those interested in such topics. Briefly, the essay attempts to tackle the idea of mind-brain duality; the idea of a physical body and an immaterial mind, i.e. ‘substance dualism’. It starts off with a brief historical account, then ventures into analysis from physics, biology and then a linguistic and conceptual look. It’s a conglomeration of various arguments from philosophy of mind, squished into a /somewhat/ brief form. And with hopefully some semblance of flow and skill.

Any feedback would be great. Thank you.

 

[mikespenard]

mind describes “soulish” processes … that resides mostly in the brain.

Where does the remainder take place?

 

[tonyrey]

You’re asking for cause and explanation of something not completely understood yet. Sure, we know a decent amount and have some evidence that points us in certain directions, but we haven’t figured it out 100% yet. Discovery and searching for answers is the exciting part of science though!

It’s also the exciting part of philosophy! There are lots of truths we take for granted because people have thought about the nature of reality. The ancient philosophers speculated about everything. Scientific disciplines in most cultures, such as the natural and social sciences together with mathematics, originally developed as offshoots of philosophy. Psychology and linguistics among the most recent examples.

 

[Areopagite]

Theologically, memory and intellect are just as “soulish” as will.

“Memory” as used formally in Catholicism and perennial epistemology is not a “soulish” thing. Even Aristotle said that memory is a thing of the body … it stores processed sense data as mental images. This storage is a material thing … like a hard-drive … and it’s obviously in our brain.

The intellect is entirely immaterial though, that’s true. As well as our will.

However, interestingly, you say …

A “will” that does not know what to want isn’t much of anything.

That’s true, and this is where we make the distinction between sense knowledge and intellectual knowledge. Sense knowledge pertains to memory … mental images of not only visual data, but of the four others that pertain to the other external senses.

However, to understand things that are detected by the senses, this requires an immaterial intellect. Abstract thinking has to be abstract … and thus concrete sense knowledge cannot be understood by concrete sense knowledge but by concepts not bound to particular physical things but which transcend above them.

As humans, we have the interesting natural limitation of not being able to understand concepts without the aid of mental images to represent them. Thus, when memory is impaired, we cannot recall the concepts that we have associated with them. On the other hand, if the memory of our brain works well, we can more effectively recall immaterial concepts because we can more effectively recall related memories. That is, in a nutshell, how the brain-intellect thing works. And, also, in my opinion, the “mind” is the combination of the brain and the intellect.

And yet Alcohol changes my will quite a bit, if only temporarily.

A good point, but I think you misunderstand how the word “will” is used.

The will is not changed except by itself. That is how humans control themselves. The will is a rational faculty, not a bodily one. It requires consciousness/self-awareness and intellectual knowledge in order to do something. Thus, one under the effects of alcohol, since it inhibits self-awareness and the general functioning of the brain (and hence divorcing it, if you will, from being understood by the intellect to a growing extent), has less and less ability to will. Bodily passions and emotions take over, not the will. The will is unable to operate in the body because the intellect is unable to read the messy situation in the brain.

You see, just because a human does something, doesn’t mean he wills it. ** I can accidentally step in a pile of dung, but that doesn’t mean I willed it. ** It requires intent and deliberation, which is a thing only found in rational beings. A drunk person acts more out of bodily passion and impulse rather than intent and deliberation.

There are some other dimensions to this issue, but I’ll just mention that fundamental one for now. I predict that you may have some objection, possibly.

For things like “will” and emotion, there is more too it than just one area of the brain. That’s why we use drugs for such things - they effect the whole brain. Anti-depressants literally help the chemicals move between synapses by either inhibiting or increasing certain chemicals.

I agree what you are saying here about the emotions. They are definitely a chemical thing and drugs can affect them. However, the will is immaterial and not found in any part of the brain. **The impulse, however, of the emotions can be consented to by the will, but the will also can resist chemical impulses. **To deny this means that we are slaves to passion and totally out of control. Or, is this what you’re suggesting? Really, if the will is not immaterial, but just another kind of emotion or something, then there is certainly no will at all then … certainly no free will at least. It would all be emotion.

Anyway, I didn’t make any of this stuff up. These ideas have been around throughout the history of Christianity, and actually predates it hundreds of years. Also, I think it’s still believed by most people in terms of common sense, despite what some modern scientists and philosophers try to say. It’s common sense at least, even if common sense is wrong, that we are in control of our actions … except when we’re not of course … like when we’re getting wasted.

 

[scameter18]

Hm. From what I can tell, this seems to be an extremely difficult topic, because it would seem that most of the attributes usually attributed to the soul, except for human dignity as images of God and it’s immortality, can be explained by the electricity of the neural system which is guided by the patterns of the brain, which then guides the body by it’s information processing. However, as I said earlier, the Catholic Church does not have as extensive a definition of the soul in it’s official teachings, the Catechism, as have some Catholic philosophers, like St. Aquinas.

My dilemma is essentially this: scientifically, is what fundamentally makes something alive is to be animate, which means to move, derives from the electricity that drives the cellular chemical reactions in our body, and on a larger scale drives our neural system and brain, which then animates our entire body and gives us direction. This electricity in our brain gives us faculties such as thought, emotions, instincts, memory, etc. And, when one no longer has electrical activity in the neural system and/or brain, one is no longer alive, hence brain death. Now, cellular functions may still exist, but once your brain is dead, they are essentially no longer apart of you.

To me, like I said, if this is true it does not eliminate human dignity, immortality or desire to love God, all of which are possible through God. It simply narrows the soul down to being those attributes. But, if those things are scientifically wrong, then the soul could even be things like thought, feelings, memory, etc., though that wouldn’t seem to be true. One of the biggest questions there is, of course, where is consciousness based: the brain, or the soul?

 

[Areopagite]

Hm. From what I can tell, this seems to be an extremely difficult topic,

This is a very difficult topic. Epistemology isn’t exactly more forte either. So, my lack of clarity is caused by that. I’ll just comment on a couple of things you said…

My dilemma is essentially this: scientifically, is what fundamentally makes something alive is to be animate, which means to move, derives from the electricity that drives the cellular chemical reactions in our body, and on a larger scale drives our neural system and brain, which then animates our entire body and gives us direction.

I might be wrong but the word “animate” has recently been dumbed down to just “having movement” or something like that. I think that the Latin word “anima” from which we get the word is richer than that … in fact, it translated to soul literally I think.

The more useful definition of being alive then is not being animated but rather the scholastic understanding. The Scholastics said that a living being has three attributes … reproduction, growth, and consumption. This pertains also to plant life. Animal life, however, not only has those things, but also has senses, which not only included the 5 senses, but also sense knowledge, including memory and even imagination. Humans possess those animal attributes, but, in addition, have rationality … and this is entirely immaterial and thus there is no organ found in the body which you can find that reasons. The brain is necessary for reason but it merely stores data with which the immaterial intellect uses to abstract concepts from.

When one no longer has electrical activity in the neural system and/or brain, one is no longer alive, hence brain death. Now, cellular functions may still exist, but once your brain is dead, they are essentially no longer apart of you.

This is not correct (but I may be wrong). Brain death is a clinical term, but it has been distinguished many times from death as talked about in philosophy (which says that the soul is the total separation of body from soul). ** If some of your cells are still lingering with life after brain death, then your soul is hanging on to some extent.** Besides, many people who have undergone brain death have been revived. Out-of-body experiences not only give evidence of the soul’s existence, but also, some of those people have described being “sucked back into their bodies” when they were revived by the defibrillators … indicating, I think, that they were still connected to their bodies somewhat, though they had nonetheless undergone brain death.

One of the biggest questions there is, of course, where is consciousness based: the brain, or the soul?

Personally, I think it’s both. Surely, it is at least partially in the brain, since our brain can undergo certain states (like sleep) and, though we certainly still have a soul, we are nonetheless unconscious. However, if we had no soul, we wouldn’t have a body … just lifeless matter … and we certainly wouldn’t be conscious then either. That’s my opinion, at least.

 

[scameter18]

Areopagite:

The Scholastics said that a living being has three attributes … reproduction, growth, and consumption.

Well, my biggest problem with that definition, however, is what if someone, human or animal, is sterile? Then they can’t reproduce. I think the most fundamental possible definition of something being alive is if it has autonomous movement in some part of it, even if it’s just the brain. However, as you said later in your post, if someone’s brain dead, but part of their body is still moving, then they would technically still be alive by my defintion, which would make the common medical method of determining somebody is dead if they are brain dead to be inaccurate. Which, if people have recovered from full brain death before (which I’ve never heard of but is possible), with absolutely complete brain death, then it would not be a valid criteria for death.

Areopagite:

Surely, it is at least partially in the brain, since our brain can undergo certain states (like sleep) and, though we certainly still have a soul, we are nonetheless unconscious. However, if we had no soul, we wouldn’t have a body … just lifeless matter … and we certainly wouldn’t be conscious then either.

It’s definitely a difficult topic. As a note though, we’re not actually unconscious when we’re asleep, because we are still experiencing something: dreams. Even if we don’t remember them. But, when we are technically unconscious, such as during surgery, it is as if the time between when we are put under and come back did not happen, no matter it’s length, because we didn’t experience it. However, we are still alive while unconscious, so consciousness is obviously not the source of life. But because of the fact that medicines and brain trauma can make us go unconscious, it would seem that consciousness is either based in the brain, or based on a connection in the brain between the soul and the body.

 

[melissa1980]

And yet won’t it be marvelous to answer the question for ourselves as each cross over at the conclusion of corporeal existence?

 

[mikespenard]

And yet won’t it be marvelous to answer the question for ourselves as each cross over at the conclusion of corporeal existence?

If you are that sure then there is little point in trying to work out the general conceptualization of what the mind is. As ‘your mind is already made up’. Pun intended

 

[melissa1980]

FUN accepted!

 

[Areopagite]

Well, my biggest problem with that definition, however, is what if someone, human or animal, is sterile? Then they can’t reproduce.

Good point, but I did purposely state “reproduction” ambiguously for this reason. Living beings are at least results of reproduction, and in this way are associated with reproduction (and qualify as a living being). I assume this is something that the Scholastics said or implied or … would have said. I am open to be accused of B.S. here though.

I think the most fundamental possible definition of something being alive is if it has autonomous movement in some part of it, even if it’s just the brain.

You may be right. I would ask though, and others might ask as well, what exactly constitutes autonomy here? Why wouldn’t something like robots be autonomous, for example?

However, as you said later in your post, if someone’s brain dead, but part of their body is still moving, then they would technically still be alive by my defintion, which would make the common medical method of determining somebody is dead if they are brain dead to be inaccurate. Which, if people have recovered from full brain death before (which I’ve never heard of but is possible), with absolutely complete brain death, then it would not be a valid criteria for death.

And, in fact, if I’m not mistaken (and I may be very much mistaken, so don’t take my word for it at all), the Church has actually stated that brain death does not equate to death as defined by the philosophic tradition of the separation of body and soul. However, I am not opposed to getting rid of the phrase “brain death.” Death can be and is used in various ways. One’s heart can stop and be revived, and that’s considered death too, right? So, yeah, it’s used to describe different things. Doctors can use it in their clinical phrases, so long as they don’t deny the more important and philosophical usage of the word.

It’s definitely a difficult topic. As a note though, we’re not actually unconscious when we’re asleep, because we are still experiencing something: dreams. Even if we don’t remember them.

Here again, different usages of a word. Consciousness can be used to describe wakefulness … and whether dreaming or not, it is common to say a person is unconscious if they are asleep. On the other hand, you could use the term** conscious to describe awareness of experience** or something like that, in which case one would be conscious when dreaming. However, I’m quite certain that the average person only has a twenty minute or so period of actual dreaming. The other part is just cold hard, unimaginative unconsciousness. So, most of the time in sleep, we are unconscious, no matter what one of these two definitions of consciousness you use here.

But because of the fact that medicines and brain trauma can make us go unconscious, it would seem that consciousness is either based in the brain, or based on a connection in the brain between the soul and the body.

Like I said before, it’s both the soul and the body. If there is no soul, then the brain (if you could call it a brain at all anymore) could not conjure up consciousness by itself, for it would be dead. Likewise, as seen in the case with sleeping and certain altered brain states where the soul is nonetheless still present, it is clear that the brain plays a part in consciousness as well.

However, to throw a wrench in it all, it seems to be the case that when the soul leaves the body it is capable of consciousness … and perhaps a very new kind of consciousness. This can be attested to by out-of-body experiences and, I suppose, can be safely assumed by divine revelation, in the cases of heaven, hell, and purgatory. Aquinas too, if I’m mistaken, says something about this very thing … but I’ll find it later. And thoughts, though, anyone?

 

[Hlafdige]

Where {besides the brain} does the remainder {of soulish processes} take place?

In the rest of the body as well, for all we know.
“Rolfing”, a muscle stimulation technique used in the treatment of injuries, routinely causes long-forgotten memories associated with the physical trauma of the injury to reappear.
Heart transplant patients will sometimes swear that their personality traits or tastes have changed and become similar to the traits or tastes of the donor…

 

[scameter18]

Autonomy simply means to move on one’s own capacity, which only living things can do. Whether or not robots can is another topic, so I’ll avoid answering it here in the interest of keeping on-topic. The soul is the life of the person, and though in the past different people have thought of the soul as having certain mental properties, like emotion and thought, the Catechism only says that it is man’s life, form, spiritual principle and the seat of his dignity as the image of God and his immortality. This does not presuppose any specific attributes beyond those, and the most scientifically relevant one of those is that the soul is man’s life. This would mean that the soul is what makes a person alive. But science defines other properties that make a person alive that are material, rather than immaterial like the soul, such as electricity providing autonomous movement of the body’s cells and neural system, and the functions produced from that.

So, essentially, is this scientific view of what makes something alive accurate, and if so, what exactly is the life-giving function of the soul that either surpasses the function of electricity in the body, or drives the electricity itself?

 

[chaz0426]

My personal opinion and understanding is that the Soul interacts (somehow?) with the Brain. An anology in computer processing terms is that the brain is the hardware and the boul is the software. Damage the hardware and the software will behave differently.

In computer terms it’s hard to say because technically if you damage specific hardware on one isolated computer (not connected to network, backup, ect.) then the software could just cease to exist. The brain would be the hard drive(storage/long term memory or all memories in brain terms), cpu (core part of brain, processing, executive functions), and Random Access Memory (short-term memory in brain). Those are the three essential parts of a computer connected by the motherboard or any common electrical board (nervous system, organs,ect).

Depends on different scenarios but if RAM alone is destroyed your software would cease to function but still exist until new RAM is put in (like coma state or amnesia in the brain analogy). However if the hard drive fails then it’s more serious as 90% or more of the software data is gone including most of the OS assuming there is no backup (like tramatic brain injury, vegitative state ect alive but not really) and if the cpu dies the computer doesn’t turn on period or shuts down immediately (pretty much like a gun shot to the head in the brain analogy).

So in applying this to the soul it’s hard to say as they are both similar in that they are both non-physical (software just combinations of one’s and zeros animated by the physical hardware) which is similar to the soul/brain relationship but if hardware is destroyed (computer explosion) then so is software or anything on it.

However today many methods exist to recover software and data (even damaged hard drives) that software practically is immortal in any situation depending on how often you back up your data.

So it’s a similar analogy but different as well. Sorry I’m a computer engineering student, couldn’t resist.

My view is like other’s have said is that the brain is the physical manifestation or apparatus of the soul. Basically the seat of the soul since without a brain the soul or spirit couldn’t function in this world since the world is made out of material and matter. There is so much mystery that we’ll never know, I think it’s arrogant for anyone scientist or not to really think we’ll ever know because it’s just impossible to prove either way for or against the existence of a soul.

Recently I’ve stared comparing the smartest apes to us humans and asking what is different. Supposedly we have souls and they don’t, but they exhibit so many similar characteristics to us (emotion, care, intelligence of 5 year old child, suffering, ect.) of course they could just be animal traits. So finding what we don’t have in common could be finding clues of the human soul.

So pretty much that’s where just pure faith comes in apart from reason. All the reasoning in the world can not “prove” a soul that everyone could agree. Trust me I still wonder how could there be a soul or anything since I have yet to actually experience or physically see something to say otherwise (NDE, or ghost, ect.). However apart from my faith my heart tells me that there must be so much more than meets the eye and what we experience with our physical senses (sight,hearing,touch,smell, taste, ect) is only a fraction of what really is.

How could life come from nothing?

Just my two cents.

 

[Fran65]

Hi Chaz,

Thank you for your reply. You’re right about the limitations of the computer analogy, but until you pointed that the software is destroyed if the hardware is destroyed it worked as a way of thinking about how the physical and non-physical may interact.

The difference between humans and higher primates is also interesting. There are assumed to be important differences between us, however, as you suggest, we are also finding more similarities. The biggest difference is that of intellectual capacity, and the extent to which higher primates are driven by instinct. These differences mean that humans are able to consider and often interested in philosophical, moral and theological questions. Despite their (limited) ability to use language, higher primates do not have this capacity.

 

[liquidpele]

Hi Chaz,

Thank you for your reply. You’re right about the limitations of the computer analogy, but until you pointed that the software is destroyed if the hardware is destroyed it worked as a way of thinking about how the physical and non-physical may interact.

The difference between humans and higher primates is also interesting. There are assumed to be important differences between us, however, as you suggest, we are also finding more similarities. The biggest difference is that of intellectual capacity, and the extent to which higher primates are driven by instinct. These differences mean that humans are able to consider and often interested in philosophical, moral and theological questions. Despite their (limited) ability to use language, higher primates do not have this capacity.

Think of it this way… a 4 year old doesn’t have such questions either - is it because they’re incapable of it? Obviously not, they just haven’t developed enough. Same with primates, only with them the development may never come since we’ll likely make them go extinct.

 

[Fran65]

Are you arguing that we should treat primates as if they too had a soul because they ‘may’ (it’s not certain) have the potential to evolve (which takes millenia) advanced intellectual capacities?

That reminds me of a joke from the UK version of The Office “My uncle would be my Aunt if he didn’t have testicles”.