The soul, the immaterial intellect and anencephaly

[KennethD]

I would be curious to hear how various philosophies, specifically those in accord with the Catholic faith (although all opinions are welcome) would treat a child born with anencephaly. This is a condition where the forebrain is never formed and large portions of the scalp and head are not formed.

Now it seems to me, in my budding and still immature Thomism, a child with such a condition, would obviously not be able to think in the way that humans do because in us, while the intellect is immaterial, it is joined to a corporeal organ. However, it is not the act of a corporeal organ so perhaps anencephalic babies who actually survive delivery think in a way similar to how we think after we have died and our souls are in a state of unnatural separation from the body. Also it would have the dignity of a human person.

This topic recently came up as an issue of discussion with a friend of mine who is an atheist, and I think its a fascinating thing to talk abut in relationship to what is personhood as well as the relevant philosophy of mind issues. This topic was also partially inspired by this blog which some may find inspiring but personally I find quite depressing babyfaithhope.blogspot.com/ .

 

[ljubim]

This is interesting. So are they not aware of themselves? Did this part of their brain die in womb?

 

[KennethD]

The parts of their brain associated with thinking and being conscious never formed at all. Most of them die as they’re born or very shortly thereafter. That blog shows an almost miraculous example of one that lived for 90 days.

Clearly according to Catholic theology and philosophy they are persons but it makes the question of personhood very difficult. If we were to cut off the head of a person and keep the rest of their body working using machines, would the sack of flesh that’s left still be a person? After all, it has the same amount of cognitive function as the child has, the machines are just doing what the brainstem and the rest of the body do. Its a very difficult question, especially if we hold the intellect to be immaterial. Despite the head being gone would there still be an intellect associated with the sack of flesh that’s only able to comprehend universals (lacking all sense knowledge of particulars)?

 

[wanner47]

Where in Catholic theology does it say that the soul resides only within the brain?

 

[KennethD]

That’s precisely my point. The soul doesn’t reside in the brain. The exercise of the intellect however is joined to the brain, but not the act of the brain. The soul of a person is their substantial form which isn’t located in any part of the body. Its the principle which actualizes the matter and makes a person human.

If we take 1) the immateriality of the intellect, 2) the non-local nature of the soul as true propositions, then at what point does personhood end? The person without a head but hooked up to a machine that emulates the brainstem in terms of keeping organs alive has the same amount of cognitive ability as the child in the blog who lacks the proper parts of the brain which allow the intellect to understand particulars. But is that headless body kept alive by machines a person? With all of the artificial means of sustaining life, when does personhood end? When does a person cease to be a person and merely an animated corpse?

I’m not trying to give an answer. I’m taking what I know of Thomistic/Aristotelian thought and applying it to this kind of situation, but I don’t know how to. I’d like to know how someone better versed in Thomistic/Aristotelian thought would respond.

 

[budgie2]

My priest told us that the soul is within the chest although in an embryo it may be in the whole part of the body. I believe the soul is in the chest although in order to make moral decisions we might use judgement which is linked to our brain. Our soul can also speak. Believe it or not I’ve had a spiritual experience of God speaking to me in my chest.

 

[masterjedi747]

…at what point does personhood end?

I honestly don’t have the answer to this question yet…
But it is on my list of things to try and work out this coming school year, so…

If we were to cut off the head of a person and keep the rest of their body working using machines, would the sack of flesh that’s left still be a person?

For what it’s worth, my gut feeling is no.
It seems like it would be a similar question to “what is the status of my arm when I cut it off”?

…would there still be an intellect associated with the sack of flesh that’s only able to comprehend universals (lacking all sense knowledge of particulars)?

…possible correction, depending on what you meant:
I don’t think we would say that a newborn in any condition actually had comprehension of universals… since we come to our knowledge of universals only though our sense knowledge of particulars. Such a young and/or physically damaged person would indeed have the capacity (“first actuality”), but not yet the exercise (“second actuality”) of their intellect.

Its a very difficult question…

Yep! :sad_yes: …wish I could be more helpful at this time, other than to say I understand where you’re at.
But if I get a chance to talk with anyone about this, I’ll definitely let you know.

 

[Benadam]

:twocents:

If we consider the dual realms the higher faculties enable us to integrate, the means which perception operates lacks the information required to acknowledge the duality of body and soul , the fundamental structure required for being a human person.

The deformed child possesses an intellect that has not had the opportunity to apprehend eternal realities.It has not been informed because the organs that it causes did not form. An intellect informed through the corporeal experience of a body has been given the information required to know self as person. The intellect of a ‘person’ who has died has apprehended eternal realities through the corporeal experience. The corporeal of self has been recieved by the spiritual self.

The self as person exists eternally if apprehended by the intellect. The child that lacks the organs to realize personhood and be presented to eternal existence lacks the ability to ‘be’ a person . The child is a human being but it’s not a person. The child’s perception would be more like a lower animal form. Since it has faculties that form conscience, the experience of it’s conscience would be bliss, free of ‘person’ al sin. A soul that does not know it’s eternal destiny having not ever been informed of eternal realities.

The child’s experience is best described imo by the theological theories that lead to the idea of the state of limbo. Comparing the experience of the child’s soul to a soul experiencing an afterlife is too problematic since it’s a soul that hasn’t experienced what makes us human.

The personhood of the self has not been apprended therefore non-existent.

 

[budgie2]

If a child with anencephaly can still survive and perform bodily functions then it’s not the same as cutting a head off. Certain aspects of mental faculties may be reduced. I think it’s totally wrong to say that that person’s soul is in limbo and the soul is in this life and in that person’s body. I think you’re guilty of confusing Christianity with materialistic philosophies such as Cartesian philosophy (“I think therefore I am”) who was also an agnostic in certain respects and Darwinism. As the sister of two mentally ill brothers I believe that the soul is the most valuable part of person and it is not located in the brain although the voice of God can speak within a person’s faculty of rational judgement.

 

[DL82]

If we take 1) the immateriality of the intellect, 2) the non-local nature of the soul as true propositions, then at what point does personhood end? The person without a head but hooked up to a machine that emulates the brainstem in terms of keeping organs alive has the same amount of cognitive ability as the child in the blog who lacks the proper parts of the brain which allow the intellect to understand particulars. But is that headless body kept alive by machines a person? With all of the artificial means of sustaining life, when does personhood end? When does a person cease to be a person and merely an animated corpse?

Of course, we could further complicate this picture by asking - if both the severed head and the severed body were kept alive, one on machines that kept the organs functioning, the other on machines that imitated the organs, where would the soul of the person reside? Which of the two separate entities would be the person? This might help. If it doesn’t help, disregard it.

Also, while my example is theoretical, be mindful that you are talking about real people here. Particularly with reference to the blog, this is some mother’s child, a person. Be careful, treat her with the same respect you would treat any other human person. She’s not just an idea to be dissected and debated, but a baby, loved by God and by people.

 

[KennethD]

I was just using the blog as an example of a real case of this. I know these are real people, and I think its unnecessary for you to remind me of this. Charity does not dictate that rational discussion of these matters should be impeded. Just because one desires to know more deeply about something does not mean one does not respect the mystery of thing.

Also, I object to the way you treat philosophy. Philosophy is not about just ideas but is about reality and real people.

The example of the head being on one machine and the body using another only complicates this further. I think the real problem here might be the functionalist philosophy of mind that the machine example implicitly follows where mind can arise from anything with the proper causal relations regardless of whether it be neurons or computers, etc. Admittedly, this is my problem: trying to make a coherent Aristotelian philosophy of mind and personhood as an alternative to the physicalist conceptions that are the majority opinion.

 

[AndyF]

KennethD:

The separation of parts of the body have no effect on the initial state of the person. At conception he was given a soul of a class more functional than simply for animation. The answer can be found in the question of why we are here, and that is as servants. In this case we serve God in providing for a human in this most primitive state of existence. We can provide nourishment and a sanitary existence. I would guess that God may through him teach us and in some way in his helpless condition bring others together through the experience. If He can turn a stone into a son of Abraham, he can do the same for a person in this state any time he wished, and probably will in the the person’s next life.

As an aside, an experiment was to follow an execution of a person to be guillotined in France. After the beheading the head was propped up and the eyes were closed. The doctor who was positioned to one side called out the person’s name. The eyes opened and turned to look at the doctor then closed again. He called out again and the eyes opened again to finally shut forever. It was concluded that if the eyes simply opened then it could have been simply a moto reaction responding to auditory circuitry. But since the eyes were made to focus, it is believed this is evidence of a command within the brain first for determination of orientation, then for turning the eye. The experiment also raised the possibility that up to the point where all neuronal activity ceased there was a good chance that pain was felt for a significant amount of time due to injury of the neck and facial musculatur. It’s been years since I found that site, sorry.

Morbid as it is, I feel there may be a point here in that is we never know who is aware of what and when it is certain a person is dead or without sensation. The guillotine was supposed to be the answer in providing for instant and painless death. Also, just one more lesson in why executions don’t get God’s sanction.

Andy

 

[Benadam]

If a child with anencephaly can still survive and perform bodily functions then it’s not the same as cutting a head off. Certain aspects of mental faculties may be reduced. I think it’s totally wrong to say that that person’s soul is in limbo and the soul is in this life and in that person’s body. I think you’re guilty of confusing Christianity with materialistic philosophies such as Cartesian philosophy (“I think therefore I am”) who was also an agnostic in certain respects and Darwinism. As the sister of two mentally ill brothers I believe that the soul is the most valuable part of person and it is not located in the brain although the voice of God can speak within a person’s faculty of rational judgement.

If you mean me I apologize.

Kenneth’s subject was an offshoot from a discussion with an atheist friend. My approach to the subject reflected that enfluence. I purposely avoided the ability to will which is the foundation of individuality and personhood. The soul of the child is willing a yes or a no to God imo,and in that way the child is a person in it’s relationship with God. The one relationship that establishes all that are loving. The child could be living a hidden life of sublime redemptive power permeating all human experience. A living Saint

 

[Norminha]

Also it would have the dignity of a human person.

I believe this statement is correct!
We, who are created in the image of God believe 100% that regardless of the challenges an individual was born. He/she is a child of God with the same dignity of a “normal” person.
I’ve face this same topic over and over by atheists and Christians, who are questioning whether a person has a value based on his/her intelligence/competence, ignoring, therefore the equal love of God toward all creatures and the individuality with which He has created each human being.
I believe that our soul and the intellect are relevant because they make us a whole, a human being.
I’m a true-seeker and love the Word of God, that’s all. I’m open to constructive criticism, after all that the reason I’m subscribed to this Forum that I enjoy it very much.

 

[heathernoel]

My son was anencephalic. Jonah was born after labor was induced at 19 weeks 6 days on April 26, 2009. He is the second of my sons to have been born still. My first was born at nearly the same gestation, but born still from unknown causes. We have three little girls with feet.

My son had a soul. My son also had enough of a brain to be able to react to his mother and daddy. We talked to him and he would seek out our voices. He favored hearing the Gloria, liked rock and roll, and was lulled to sleep by his sister. He, without a doubt, had a definite personality.

We induced labor, thus ending his life. Not because we didn’t love him, or wanted to be rid of him. Just the opposite. With our priest’s advice, and our deacon’s vigil, chose to induce because the risks to me, who is the mother to three earthly girls, were great. Jonah was also in a womb with bloody amniotic fluid, which was increasing in level. He was so beautiful, and so tiny. He was the absolute epitome of perfection.

If you would like more of a personal perspective on the issue, please feel free to PM me.

 

[Hlafdige]

… it’s a soul that hasn’t experienced what makes us human.

The personhood of the self has not been apprended therefore non-existent.

What do you have to experience or apprehend in order to qualify as human? If something is missing to your experience or the physical equipment necessary for it, does that make you less human?
“Man is a social being.” You social being, me on the autistic spectrum – when people stand around for hours at a party making small talk, I have about as much idea of what they’re doing and how to go about it as a dog has when he sees his master reading the newspaper. Does the fact that I lack the neurological hardware for this experience of fellowship jeopardise my fitness for the communion of saints? I don’t think so. The self is a self and the soul is a soul because God created them in the image of His Son.

 

[Benadam]

What do you have to experience or apprehend in order to qualify as human? If something is missing to your experience or the physical equipment necessary for it, does that make you less human?
“Man is a social being.” You social being, me on the autistic spectrum – when people stand around for hours at a party making small talk, I have about as much idea of what they’re doing and how to go about it as a dog has when he sees his master reading the newspaper. Does the fact that I lack the neurological hardware for this experience of fellowship jeopardise my fitness for the communion of saints? I don’t think so. The self is a self and the soul is a soul because God created them in the image of His Son.

It seems your intellect is well informed and apprehending eternal realities just fine. Maybe your intellect is less obstructed than the rest of ours. Autism is difficult to understand.

Experiencing our humanity and being human are not the same thing by far.

If the intellect has never been informed, the ‘earthly’ experience of personhood is left unrealized. That say’s nothing about the experience of being a human person as it pertains to the soul’s relationship with God.