What exactly is the soul?

[ynotzap]

It is not the eternal spirit that makes us who we are, for we are not all spirit, and it is not the physical that makes us who we are,for we are not all physical. It is the union of the
spirit with the physical that makes us who we are. Incarnate spirit by God’s design.

Theologically speaking " The word of God became incarnate" True God, true man

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And I add, that it would never be the case that we could have soul memory without participation of the body, that in man the two will never be separated, hylomorphicism, man’s nature is to be viewed as a whole, union of matter and spirit. That is his being. By God’s providence.

Right.

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

It is not the eternal spirit that makes us who we are, for we are not all spirit, and it is not the physical that makes us who we are,for we are not all physical. It is the union of the spirit with the physical that makes us who we are. Incarnate spirit by God’s design.

Theologically speaking " The word of God became incarnate" True God, true man

In this world and in the resurrection.

However, (CCC:1029):

“In the glory of heaven the blessed continue joyfully to fulfill God’s will in relation to other men and to all creation. Already they reign with Christ; with him ‘they shall reign for ever and ever.’”

In heaven, the memories of our lives here, I imagine will be absorbed in the glorious vision of eternity.
That said, love remains and we do pray for the intercession of our blessed Mother and the Saints.
Our souls are not lost to oblivion at death, if that is what you are suggesting. I don’t think you are, but I don’t understand what you are getting at.

 

[Faith1960]

Duely noted

And what article of faith was Aristotle defending? I have not noticed any better philosophical argument than that offered by Aquinas and those who followed him. So what discipline are you alluding to?.

I don’t see anything wrong with the argument.

I don’t believe that Aquinas’ teaching on the soul is infallible, I think it is true.

What I find silly is that neuron and synapsis activity would account for the immaterial activities of man. No, I do not share your fear.

All the Church teaches is that man has a spiritual soul that is the form of man ( CCC, 362-365 ). It is the soul, which God " breathed " into the human body which makes him the image of god. And how are we the image of God? This Aquinas explains is our abliity to think, remember, and will. What is not demonstrable is that the brain is the cause of man’s immaterial activities. If that were true, what would be the function of the soul which the Church calls the form of man?

Linus2nd

I’m just jumping in here, but I believe thoughts originate inn the brain.

 

[Aloysium]

I’m just jumping in here, but I believe thoughts originate inn the brain.

If I have a stroke in my left hemisphere, I will lose all my words and/or no longer understand what is being said.
However, my brain did not spontaneously come up with that idea like some reflexive response.
I thought it out.
As Ynot states above “It is the union of the spirit with the physical that makes us who we are.”
Persons think. They have brains and minds.
Thoughts originate in ourselves; your understanding arose within yourself.

That’s how I see/would describe it.

 

[Faith1960]

It does this and far far more. It regulates circadian rhythm, hormone levels such as in the menstrual cycle, sleep levels including dreams, mood and anxiety, pain, muscle tone, attention span, and pretty much everything that keeps one alive such as breathing and heart rate.

The brain may be the central control, but the body is pretty much a unit where everything supports and provides some sort of feedback to everything else.

We share pretty much all of this with animals. What our soul (from its position in eternity and as other, in relation to the Ground of its being and to our fellow human souls) does different is utilize the brain, which is far more developed than in animals, to reason, appreciate beauty and to truly love. We do not react purely instinctively; we can observe from outside time and can give even our lives to the good which we can know.

Our bodies and spirit are one. Because of our original choice to abandon the Good, we will all perish. But, we live in the hope that our individual and unique spirit will live with God until our promised resurrection at the end of time, after we have all come into being and fulfilled His will.

That’s my take on all this.

Good post.

 

[Faith1960]

If I have a stroke in my left hemisphere, I will lose all my words and/or no longer understand what is being said.
However, my brain did not spontaneously come up with that idea like some reflexive response.
I thought it out.
As Ynot states above “It is the union of the spirit with the physical that makes us who we are.”
Persons think. They have brains and minds.
Thoughts originate in ourselves; your understanding arose within yourself.

That’s how I see/would describe it.

You do agree we think with our brains, right?

 

[Faith1960]

For those who believe that thoughts originate in the soul (if anybody does), do you also think that your belief is Catholic dogma?

 

[ynotzap]

In this world and in the resurrection.

However, (CCC:1029):

In heaven, the memories of our lives here, I imagine will be absorbed in the glorious vision of eternity.
That said, love remains and we do pray for the intercession of our blessed Mother and the Saints.
Our souls are not lost to oblivion at death, if that is what you are suggesting. I don’t think you are, but I don’t understand what you are getting at.

The saints presently are disembodied spirits, in their glory. the truths of our faith tell us that they will be united with their bodies and are not complete without their bodies which will be gorified by the glory of the soul. God made man to be what he is, eternally, body and soul. Why would they be united with their bodies, if their souls are all they are, the body is not the slave of the soul, but should be regarded as the temple of the soul, part of man’s very being. The soul is the noblest part of man’s nature, but the body shares in that nobility. Our bodies will not be lost to the oblivion of corruption. Even in Hell the body is united with the soul.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

For those who believe that thoughts originate in the soul (if anybody does), do you also think that your belief is Catholic dogma?

What a strange question. We believe in the Catholic Church ( the Creed ), we do not believe in dogma. But we believe what the dogmas of he Church say.

We do use our brain in thinking, but as a tool. It is the mind that thinks. But they work together. But we usually say that it is man who thinks.

Linus2nd

 

[Faith1960]

What a strange question.

Linus2nd

Now thats not very nice.

 

[GEddie]

In this world and in the resurrection.

However, (CCC:1029):

In heaven, the memories of our lives here, I imagine will be absorbed in the glorious vision of eternity.
That said, love remains and we do pray for the intercession of our blessed Mother and the Saints.
Our souls are not lost to oblivion at death, if that is what you are suggesting. I don’t think you are, but I don’t understand what you are getting at.

So are you now holding that there can be no mind/memory in the soul proper?

 

[yppop]

You do agree we think with our brains, right?

I don’t!

I think with percepts (images) of words. My brain forms words that are then stored in my perceptual memory (or actual intellect), the spiritual component (nous) of the mind. The human mind is composed of the perceptual memory and the language function of the material memory. Do you realize that to “think with the brain” means to engage the neuronal circuits to form and reform synaptic connections that are associated with “words”. If the formation of synaptic connections goes as fast as my mind thinks all I can imagine is a lot of axons and dendrites flopping around like so much wheat in a stiff wind. Personnally I can not think without images of words, primarily sound images, that is, words without the sound, not visual images that are “seen” without looking.

Here’s something to think about for you guys that equate the material with the spiritual components of the mind: given that matter consists of electrons and quarks, both of which are point particles (no measurable dimension), it seems that the total volume of actual matter is virtually zero. Now what do you think fills up all that space between electrons and quarks, if not nous, then what??

Peace
Yppop

 

[Faith1960]

I don’t!

I think with percepts (images) of words. My brain forms words that are then stored in my perceptual memory (or actual intellect), the spiritual component (nous) of the mind. The human mind is composed of the perceptual memory and the language function of the material memory. Do you realize that to “think with the brain” means to engage the neuronal circuits to form and reform synaptic connections that are associated with “words”. If the formation of synaptic connections goes as fast as my mind thinks all I can imagine is a lot of axons and dendrites flopping around like so much wheat in a stiff wind. Personnally I can not think without images of words, primarily sound images, that is, words without the sound, not visual images that are “seen” without looking.

Here’s something to think about for you guys that equate the material with the spiritual components of the mind: given that matter consists of electrons and quarks, both of which are point particles (no measurable dimension), it seems that the total volume of actual matter is virtually zero. Now what do you think fills up all that space between electrons and quarks, if not nous, then what??

Peace
Yppop

That was way over my head.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium

No.
The above reflects a view that save those moments of charity, the love that exists between us and in my view, continues after our death, judging by my experience with my own life, there are no amazing, fantastic events worthy to compete with the vision of God in eternity.
This life is a part of the grand mystery of all creation, and having hopefully given it over to God, it is one of a multitude.
The post was meant to address the reality of disembodied, but fulfilled spirits in heaven and thereby contribute to the discussion of what constitutes a soul.
We are each of us unique and irreplaceable beings, known completely and loved by our heavenly Father. The mind/memory would be who we are in eternity.

:twocents:

 

[Faith1960]

Linus have you been hiding under a rock these last 50 yrs .
Few in the scientific community (let alone the street) denies that the brain stores memories anymore! I am willing to be surprised though as I have never “peer reviewed” the issue.

But like geo-centrism, if people cannot let go of cherished assumptions there will always be “logical” reasons to keep those beliefs I suppose.

It comes back to my questions to you re whether or not you disbelieve on aposteriori or apriori grounds.

I know from experience you really disagree on apriori grounds (as you always do because you trust the Ancients more than Empiricism).

A non-falsifiable philosophy is very consoling, but also very lonely .

What is the official position of the Church regarding this?

 

[Faith1960]

PET scans of the brain show brain activity when people are thinking etc.

 

[Richca]

For those who believe that thoughts originate in the soul (if anybody does), do you also think that your belief is Catholic dogma?

We think with our intellect and love with our will. We share in God’s image and likeness according to these two spiritual powers of our soul. The angels also have intelligence and will but they are wholly spiritual and immaterial and thus they by nature are more like God than we are. Yes, this is catholic dogma. The human souls of the blessed in heaven who see God face to face though they are without their material brains are not there as though they are vegetables. They see and know God with their intellects and love him with their wills and are supremely happy.

 

[Richca]

Well that is a complete non-sequitor aimed at the choir perhaps rather than my point .

Oh boy, this is heavy going…Linus this means you fail to understand Aristotle at a very basic level of his Nat Phil. This is precisely why he believed the Celestial Spheres had some sort of “soul”.
Immaterial acts, according to both Aristotle and Aquinas,require an abiding immaterial substance! Even the “more modern” Aquinas found it hard to escape this conclusion because he is of the same basic frame of mind on such a basic “scientific” assumption of the Ancients.
You opine Aquinas taught it was angels. This is not correct. Aquinas is very confused on this point. He is “scientific” enough to know that Aristotle’s conclusion doesn’t sit well but he really has no tight philosophic basis for denying Aristotle’s conclusion. He offers a few throwaway comments about perhaps angels…but never really solves the difficulty.
He cannot, because it would weaken his philosophy of Man and Intellect which relies on the exact same principle.

 

[inocente]

Juan
Inocente
What do you guys believe is the difference between the brain and the mind? Is there nothing additional that distinguishes the mind from the brain; something “immaterial” that could be considered “spiritual”? And if there is something spiritual that forms a composite to create the mind, what is its function?

I find neurobiology a fascinating subject. I have just completed my fifth Coursera Course given by top-notch professors from leading universities and what I have learned in my yearlong study is that the scientists have done a magnificent job in generating the in depth and detailed knowledge of the human brain. Not a single one mentioned “consciousness”.

Your bios (Catholic, Baptist) imply a belief in God. Which raises a question in my mind (not my brain): why don’t you believe the spiritual substance that is associated with the soul does take part in the activity of the mind, that the immaterial phenomena such as thought, qualia, feelings, emotions etc. are produced by the spiritual memory and are not just an “emergent” property of the neurons in the brain?

However I do understand how persons that are enamored with science can fall into the trap of believing that science is the only approach to the search for the truth of reality. Let me demonstrate with an excerpt from a lecture by a very brilliant professor that knows the entire central nervous system (CNS) in minute detail and can describe the function of each and every element.

Now, recall that the somatotopy in the motor cortex is a gross reflection of the somatotopy that we find in the somatic sensory cortex, across the central sulcus and the post central gyrus. But the detail is quite different. Rather than there being a faithful representation in a point-by-point fashion of the contralateral body surface, what we see in the motor cortex is a map of movement intention. And that intention is roughly somatotopically organized in the following way. With movements that we intend to make involving our lower extremity being represented here in the paracentral lobule on the medial face of the hemisphere, and just out a bit into the dorsal medial margin of the hemisphere. Well, as we progress in a lateral and inferior direction, we move from the lower extremity up through the trunk and into a large expansive region near the center of the motor cortex that is concerned with the movements that we intend to make with our arms and our hands.

(The one thing I learned from these courses is that I have gone from an A to a C student. I still comprehend but don’t retain very well.)

The reaction to such a presentation is usually, "Wow! this guy really knows his stuff!’. It is natural to be easily impressed by such deep knowledge and tend to rely on such people for our general knowledge even that which goes beyond the area of their expertise. However, if one reads philosophically, i.e., with discernment, he/she might just ask the most important question that this excerpt raises, namely, what is the “map of movement intention” and what and where is it? Does a neuronal object decide when to move the arm? Then we might also ask, "what is the WE in the phrase “we intend”? Is WE a neuronal circuit? I think you know the answer and the WE or the I isn’t one or any number of neutrons.

There is a great tendency for neurobiologists to bury the real questions in a stream of magnificent knowledge using inexplicable words or phrases.

On brain and mind, I’d say the brain is the stuff between our ears while the mind is the faculty of awareness and consciousness.

On “spiritual” or immaterial, I think people uses such words in many different ways, but we can perhaps cut through any confusion by asking: Can the mind, or any aspect of the mind, function only by breaking the laws of nature?

Perhaps some people might argue that they don’t know how the mind could do some particular trick without breaking a law of nature, but that just says they don’t know. I’ve never seen a coherent claim that the mind cannot in principle do something unless it breaks a law of nature. And, of course, that would be a huge claim requiring lots of evidence, since it would mean that some aspect of the human mind is the only composite phenomenon in the entire universe which is so disordered that it follows no pattern, even in principle, and is therefore forever inexplicable.

On intentionality and I-ness or we-ness, there is a tendency to want such things to have a location on a map. Perhaps they do, but we need maps at different levels (anologous to elementary particle, atom, molecule, cell, organ, elephant. No one could explain an elephant only in terms of quarks and electrons). The map containing a node for intentionality or self-awareness might also need to include dynamics. For instance, the act of self-awareness might be narrative woven out of a conversation between different sub-systems (or not, I’m not intending to add to the speculative dogmas ).