What exactly is the soul?

[Vico]

I just read part of an article that agrees with what many of you are saying but explained it in a way i could understand.
The only thing different, is it says the mind resides in the brain.

Thoughts?

Catholic Enclyopedia - Mind
The conviction of the common sense of mankind, and the assumption of physical science that there are two orders of being in the universe, mind and matter, distinct from each other yet interacting and influencing each other, and the assurance that the human mind can obtain a limited yet true knowledge of the material world which really exists outside and independently of it occupying a space of three dimensions, this view, which is the common teaching of the Scholastic philosophy and Catholic thinkers, can be abundantly justified (see DUALISM; CONSERVATION OF ENERGY).

Maher, M. (1911). Mind. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/10321a.htm

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I very much doubt that Aristotle would agree with your notion that some things are necessarily hidden, since the presence of the occult would make philosophy pointless, as all inquiry would end with hidden causes. Anyway it’s a good job that neuroscientists, including Catholic neuroscientists, don’t believe in the occult, or at the slightest difficulty they’d say “there you go, told you, it’s forever hidden, anyone for golf?”.

If we are speaking Aristotle/Aquinas we need to properly understand what is meant by “occult”.

These days it has New Age, Spiritualist implications which is not at all what the above philosophers mean.
Even the word “hidden” is ambiguous.

Take the accelerated movement of the celestial bodies (ie allegedly circular motion).
Now Aquinas is surely correct that whatever is moved (ie accelerating) must be moved (ie persistently acted upon) by another. (OK he prob didn’t mean it quite this way but I am interpretting him in the best light consistent with Newtyonian physics).

Therefore Aristotle/Aquinas had a problem … where in the sky is the cause…what material thing is causing this effect? Ultimately there isn’t a material one to be found.

Consequently logic suggests, if the above principle is true, that there must be a cause that is immaterial. In other words, there is a realm of “being” that is non-material…yet is capable of “animating” matter - whether it be a brain, a planet or a star.

I find that a perfectly acceptable form of logic and philosophic conclusion.
It isn’t necessarily “occult” (though it could easily lend itself to that sort of New Age spin).

Of course, in the above example, Aristotle was wrong.
The cause was of course “not material”, but different from how he thought of it (“Uncaused Cause”) … it was the invisible force of gravitational attraction…which ultimately is caused by the mass of all other material bodies in space.

Are such forces “material” or “non-material”. While its an interesting question I think its a tangent. They are but instrumental agents in the movement of the celestial bodies. The originating efficient cause is really just other celestial bodies which clearly are material.

But back to brains.
Can the activities brains exhibit (“effects”) be explained adequately by chains of material causality…or must we posit the existence of something we cannot observe/sense as the primary cause? If we do then this is all we mean by “occult” or “hidden” or “spiritual”.
Hence the soul stuff.

And if we do have to go this way there is a further decision to be made.
Is this “soul” standalone (ie can exist even apart from the matter it effects) or is the soul and the organised matter it “effects” so intertwined that it is illogical to speak of one without the other?

This is where classic Aristotle and Aquinas seem to part company. Classic Aristotle had no time for a soul that persists when a man dies. Aquinas clearly does under the Christian imperative.

Confusingly, “Christian” philosophers of Aristotle hold that Aristotle did imply the eternity of the human soul. It appears Aristotle was ambiguous on this point in his writings…at least according to christians.

 

[Vico]

If we are speaking Aristotle/Aquinas we need to properly understand what is meant by “occult”.

These days it has New Age, Spiritualist implications which is not at all what the above philosophers mean.
Even the word “hidden” is ambiguous.

Take the accelerated movement of the celestial bodies (ie allegedly circular motion).
Now Aquinas is surely correct that whatever is moved (ie accelerating) must be moved (ie persistently acted upon) by another. (OK he prob didn’t mean it quite this way but I am interpretting him in the best light consistent with Newtyonian physics).

Therefore Aristotle/Aquinas had a problem … where in the sky is the cause…what material thing is causing this effect? Ultimately there isn’t a material one to be found.

Consequently logic suggests, if the above principle is true, that there must be a cause that is immaterial. In other words, there is a realm of “being” that is non-material…yet is capable of “animating” matter - whether it be a brain, a planet or a star.

I find that a perfectly acceptable form of logic and philosophic conclusion.
It isn’t necessarily “occult” (though it could easily lend itself to that sort of New Age spin).

Of course, in the above example, Aristotle was wrong.
The cause was of course “not material”, but different from how he thought of it (“Uncaused Cause”) … it was the invisible force of gravitational attraction…which ultimately is caused by the mass of all other material bodies in space.

Are such forces “material” or “non-material”. While its an interesting question I think its a tangent. They are but instrumental agents in the movement of the celestial bodies. The originating efficient cause is really just other celestial bodies which clearly are material.

But back to brains.
Can the activities brains exhibit (“effects”) be explained adequately by chains of material causality…or must we posit the existence of something we cannot observe/sense as the primary cause? If we do then this is all we mean by “occult” or “hidden” or “spiritual”.
Hence the soul stuff.

And if we do have to go this way there is a further decision to be made.
Is this “soul” standalone (ie can exist even apart from the matter it effects) or is the soul and the organised matter it “effects” so intertwined that it is illogical to speak of one without the other?

This is where classic Aristotle and Aquinas seem to part company. Classic Aristotle had no time for a soul that persists when a man dies. Aquinas clearly does under the Christian imperative.

Confusingly, “Christian” philosophers of Aristotle hold that Aristotle did imply the eternity of the human soul. It appears Aristotle was ambiguous on this point in his writings…at least according to christians.

Although per Aristotle the soul is inseparable from the body, the intellect is separable.

Aristotle on Thinking (Noêsis) Copyright © 2008, S. Marc Cohen

De Anima III 4-5.It is unreasonable for intellect to be mixed with the body, since it would then acquire some quality (for instance, hot or cold) or even, like the perceiving part, have some organ, whereas in fact it has none. (42925-27)

Since intellect does not have a bodily organ, it is separable from the body:
… intellect is separable, whereas the perceiving part requires a body. (429b5)

archive.is/WSiUh

 

[inocente]

Inocente
Here are three questions I addressed to you in mu post 142 that you never answered:

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

I think I did answer your post - please see post #198.

Your posts lately read like something a materialist would write. If that were so, I could better understand where you stand.

I’ve never met a Christian outside of CAF who has ever referred to the Aristotle/Thomas

line, and that includes ministers and the Catholic priest I know. It also includes geocentrists, creationists, evangelicals, you name it.

Not sure if that means I’ve never met anyone in real-life who is in the control group, or if I’ve never met anyone on CAF who is in the control group.

 

[GEddie]

I just read part of an article that agrees with what many of you are saying but explained it in a way i could understand.
The only thing different, is it says the mind resides in the brain.

Thoughts?

Post a link?

 

[inocente]

The schematics showing how the immaterial spiritual substance of the human soul interfaces with the material brain and the rest of the human body are what the scientists are observing in a living body under electron microscopes and what have you. They are observing molecules and chemical reactions; atoms and parts of atoms; electromagnetism and electrical charges and impulses; etc. All such things constitute that part of man which is his material, physical body. If your asking for an observable schematic of the soul itself, this is not possible for modern science and the means it uses. The soul, being immaterial, cannot be observed either under an electron microscope, in an atom smasher, with any of our exterior senses or interior senses such as the imagination, or anything else. The immateriality or spirituality of the human soul can only be known by the intellect which is itself an immaterial power of the soul as well as our will.

A philosophy of materialism or physicalism which it appears to me you are a proponent of because of the knowledge we have gained about the material, physical world from modern science is not an invention of modern science. Such a theory of the world was held by most of the pre-Socratic greek philosophers over 2500 years ago. In this sense, modern materialism or physicalism is nothing but a resurrection of pre-Socratic ancient greek philosophical theory. A pre-Socratic philosophical advancement was made by Anaxorgoras who introduced the concept of Mind as the ulitimate principle that underlies what we observe in the world and nature and of whom Aristotle says in his metaphysics that he “stood out like a sober man from the random talkers that had preceded him.” Anaxagoras though did not fully develop his theory of the distinction between mind and matter or the spiritual and the corporeal. This was left to later thinkers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. These later fully developed the distinction between sense, imagination and the intellect, the material and the immaterial. Modern materialism and physicalism is a product of sense and imagination as it was to many of the pre-Socratic philosophers even though the modern natural sciences such as physics, chemisty, and biology use concepts that cannot be sensed or imagined.

What is interesting to note here is that modern physics tells us that there are certain forces of nature or properties of matter or substances such as electrical charges, electromagnetism and magnetism, and gravity. To the best of my knowledge, these properties of matter and substances are not actually observed, we only see the effects of these properties. Modern physics has introduced mathematical theories of fields to explain such effects, the fields themselves to the best of my knowledge are not seen; they are mathematical equations if I’m not mistaken. Do we actually see electrical charges or magnetic fields? I think we can only infer that there are such phenomenon as for example if one puts two magnets close to each other they either repel or attract. Such phenomenon Aristotle calls forms or accidental forms of material substances. Beyond the invisible, physical properties of material substances, reality contains many other “invisible”, immaterial concepts and qualities such as goodness and evil, truth and falsity, beauty, morals, reward and punishment, virtues and vices, law, free will, understanding, and God which is simply beyond the scope of the natural sciences. Philosophically, this is the realm of metaphysics.

I suggest an alternative approach.

There are two competing hypotheses. One is that the mind can be explained entirely as emerging from the central nervous system. Call this the physical emergence alone (PEA) hypothesis.

The alternate, let’s call it the immaterial spiritual soul (ISS) hypothesis, is that there is something which the PEA hypothesis can never explain, even in principle.

Now, you say and I agree that there can be no research into the the ISS hypothesis. This means that all research, year after year, by many teams all around the world, explains more and more, and so there is less and less scope for the ISS hypothesis’ hope of something forever inexplicable.

The issue then is that the ISS hypothesis rests on the hope that eventually all research will fail, even after a thousand years, to explain some aspect of mind. The ISS hypothesis is in essence a hope for a gap in what we can possibly know, a gap in which an old philsophical belief can safely hide. I do not believe Christ calls us to such hopes.

 

[inocente]

You have not considered the possibility that you do not understand the concept of the human spiritual soul, and are trying to jam it into categories where it does not belong - the material and the occult.

Ah, on every thread where Scholastic philosophy is discussed, there comes a point where fans declare that only the cognoscenti, after a lifetime of study and contemplation, can possibly comprehend the wondrous cloth, and that ordinary mortals can never attain the true state of nirvana necessary to appreciate the magnificent stitching.

I see we have reached that point once again.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I suggest an alternative approach.

There are two competing hypotheses. One is that the mind can be explained entirely as emerging from the central nervous system. Call this the physical emergence alone (PEA) hypothesis.

The alternate, let’s call it the immaterial spiritual soul (ISS) hypothesis, is that there is something which the PEA hypothesis can never explain, even in principle.

Now, you say and I agree that there can be no research into the the ISS hypothesis. This means that all research, year after year, by many teams all around the world, explains more and more, and so there is less and less scope for the ISS hypothesis’ hope of something forever inexplicable.

The issue then is that the ISS hypothesis rests on the hope that eventually all research will fail, even after a thousand years, to explain some aspect of mind. The ISS hypothesis is in essence a hope for a gap in what we can possibly know, a gap in which an old philsophical belief can safely hide. I do not believe Christ calls us to such hopes.

Richa will answer for himself. But I wish to observe that those who hold the ISS hypothesis ( including the Catholic Church who teaches dogmatically that Man has an eternal, rational soul, created, in time, immediately by God. ) harbor no ill hopes for those who hold the PEA hypothesis. People can occupy their time any way they wish, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone, but in this case it would be a waste of time .

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I don’t know what is going on other persons minds. I just tell you what I have seen and what I have listened. Perhaps I don’t force any assumption in this regard because I don’t feel the need to.

You know, I have some colleagues here who are engineers on electronics, computing systems and robotics, and as during a time I was very curious about how those computer devices called “memories” work, I was asking them about it. To my surprise they could not answer my second or third set of questions. They seemed to know no more than you do about it: those things work and that is it. I don’t know if, for you, it is a sign of intellectual superiority over the ancients, but their ignorance did not concern them at all: Use it and don’t ask, said they.

You never actually asked me how computer memory works, it’s very simple, intellectual superiors need not apply. The best technology for explanation is probably core memory, as the components are visible.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic-core_memory

*I have my children and a modern mobile phone, and, believe it or not, I am still one of those ancient guys who find enormous differences between them. When we had our first child, I used to think of him as a marvelous being who, after the union of two tiny cells, worked as a singular and incomprehensible (to me it is still definitely incomprehensible) “matter attractor”, protected within his mother’s womb and taking matter from her mother’s body to form himself. He was growing and developing by himself without any intervention from us. Once he was constituted, he came out and started to cry, and to breath, and he looked for his mother… To me, it is… incomprehensible…

As for my mobile phone…, it was designed and assembled by some of those marvelous human beings (though there must be some robots in the production line as well). It didn’t assemble itself. Mobile phones don’t remember anything; they just reproduce something which was recorded in their “memories”.*

You seem to be arguing that memory is only memory when you say it is memory.

*Yes, that belief is kind of embedded in language. Even you speak in such a way that it would seem you believe in the existence of the homunculus. When you talk about the brain, it also would seem to be the homunculus for you; haven’t you noticed that?

On the other hand, I think that if you limited yourself to describe just what you perceive, you would never say something like “the mind emerges from the components”. You don’t see any mind emerging, Inocente. By saying that you are only repeating other “ancient pre-scientific philosophical dogma”.*

Isn’t emergence a fairly straightforward idea? - elephants have properties and behaviors which couldn’t be predicted from the properties and behaviors of the elementary particles of which they’re composed.

As for your unfounded homunculus remark and your other personal remarks in that post, if you feel the need to do amateur psychoanalysis on other posters then fine, but please don’t try it on with me. As the moderator says when it’s necessary for him to intervene, discuss the subject not each other. Thanks.

 

[inocente]

Richa will answer for himself. But I wish to observe that those who hold the ISS hypothesis ( including the Catholic Church who teaches dogmatically that Man has an eternal, rational soul, created, in time, immediately by God. ) harbor no ill hopes for those who hold the PEA hypothesis. People can occupy their time any way they wish, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone, but in this case it would be a waste of time .

You mean except that the research has allowed many people with mental disorders to be treated, along with various other in-capacities?

btw I think it highly unlikely that the Church holds with the ISS hypothesis, as I only just invented it today, and anyway it would mean the Church has set its face against science, which sounds improbable.

I’m done for today, posted out. Sorry BH, just noticed your post, have to wait for tomorrow. :yawn:

 

[Faith1960]

Post a link?

Never mind i cant find it

 

[Aloysium]

Originally Posted by Aloysium

So this would not be the first time you have heard something similar and your answer remains “no”.

. . . Isn’t emergence a fairly straightforward idea? - elephants have properties and behaviors which couldn’t be predicted from the properties and behaviors of the elementary particles of which they’re composed. . .

You do realize you have stated nothing here.
If you are going to propose that mind emerges from matter, you have to provide a mechanism whereby this happens.
Otherwise you are engaging in the very “occult” gobbledegloo that you rail against.
How does the totality that is an elephant emerge from elementary particles?
What properties in nature have to exist in order to do this?
Right here and now, where you as a person have to listen to me, another person take you to task about simplistic thinking, really what properties inherent to matter would be required for this reality, for your experience to happen?
What is it that would make my comment unpleasant?

 

[Faith1960]

Post a link?

I cant get the link to work, but this might be it:

Google: controlmind.info The Difference Between Brain and Mind

 

[ynotzap]

Some basic questions come to mind regarding the soul, and matter, How are they differentiated? How do we know a soul exists, and how do we know it is spiritual.
I think that the existence of matter is self-evident, it’s very denial is also self-evidence of its existence (for the skeptic) Are there things or realities that can not be sensed? And if they can not be sensed, how do we know they are real? Do we know radio wave exist, we can not directly sense them. Yet we know by man’s intellectual endeavors they were discovered to exist, by material, empirical experimentation, and human
reasoning (intellection)

What is the human intellect? An instrument to know, and what is knowing, a material thing or action? Is knowing oneself, or self-awareness a physical thing in itself? How is it possible to do this? Is a thing called thought physical in itself? What are ideas, abstractions, what is truth, understanding, wisdom, order, purpose, logical, belief, theories, meanings, knowledge are these things physical in themselves. Can we examine them in a lab? What is psychology? What do these things say about their source? Do they have a source? Are physical things capable of producing these things?

To me it is evident, that spirit and matter are two separate substances. And they are not intermingled, mixed, but co-exist as a unit in human nature, the principle of activity being the form of the body. (It is the spirit that gives life) The principle of activity can be material, in plant life, and in animal life, but not in rational life. Matter can not produce rational intelligence, although there are scientists that will try. A computer is nothing but a logically planed electrical circuit with components, that to compute seemingly “rationally” always needs a designer, and a programer who have “rational intelligence” to make it seem so. Don’t be fooled. We have the best computer in our brains, with the best programer, our intelligence, which was designed by the very best Inventor and Creator

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Some basic questions come to mind regarding the soul, and matter, How are they differentiated? How do we know a soul exists, and how do we know it is spiritual.
I think that the existence of matter is self-evident, it’s very denial is also self-evidence of its existence (for the skeptic) Are there things or realities that can not be sensed? And if they can not be sensed, how do we know they are real? Do we know radio wave exist, we can not directly sense them. Yet we know by man’s intellectual endeavors they were discovered to exist, by material, empirical experimentation, and human
reasoning (intellection)

What is the human intellect? An instrument to know, and what is knowing, a material thing or action? Is knowing oneself, or self-awareness a physical thing in itself? How is it possible to do this? Is a thing called thought physical in itself? What are ideas, abstractions, what is truth, understanding, wisdom, order, purpose, logical, belief, theories, meanings, knowledge are these things physical in themselves. Can we examine them in a lab? What is psychology? What do these things say about their source? Do they have a source? Are physical things capable of producing these things?

To me it is evident, that spirit and matter are two separate substances. And they are not intermingled, mixed, but co-exist as a unit in human nature, the principle of activity being the form of the body. (It is the spirit that gives life) The principle of activity can be material, in plant life, and in animal life, but not in rational life. Matter can not produce rational intelligence, although there are scientists that will try. A computer is nothing but a logically planed electrical circuit with components, that to compute seemingly “rationally” always needs a designer, and a programer who have “rational intelligence” to make it seem so. Don’t be fooled. We have the best computer in our brains, with the best programer, our intelligence, which was designed by the very best Inventor and Creator

I would correct one thought. The soul is the form of the body. But the form of any substance is not something " glued " on to its substance, it suffuses it, it permeates it. As Aquinas taught, the soul is wholely present in every part of the body, it permeates it through and through. There is not a single nuron or synapsis or cell in which the soul is not present. So while the body and the soul are different realities, they are indeed totally mixed.

Linus2nd

 

[GEddie]

I cant get the link to work, but this might be it:

Google: controlmind.info The Difference Between Brain and Mind

Thank you chica

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Although per Aristotle the soul is inseparable from the body, the intellect is separable.

Aristotle on Thinking (Noêsis) Copyright © 2008, S. Marc Cohen

De Anima III 4-5.It is unreasonable for intellect to be mixed with the body, since it would then acquire some quality (for instance, hot or cold) or even, like the perceiving part, have some organ, whereas in fact it has none. (42925-27)

Since intellect does not have a bodily organ, it is separable from the body:
… intellect is separable, whereas the perceiving part requires a body. (429b5)

archive.is/WSiUh

If you mean the intellect may be distinguished from the body then that would be a relatively non problematic translation/interpretation. But if this is to be understood as saying the intellectual soul is substantial without the body I believe that would be controversial.

It seems Aristotle was wrong here… it seems it took a long time before it was realised what the brain actually did and that it was indeed a bodily organ associated with intellect. Then again he may not be using an aposteriori argument at all. He may simply be making a conclusion that the intellect cannotpossibly have need of a bodily organ because it is purely hidden or spiritual. That would be an apriori argument.
Given the science of the time maybe he meant both.
Perhaps his reasoning would not have been so certain if he understood the purpose of the brain as fully as we do nowadays.

 

[Richca]

Originally Posted by Richca View Post
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.

What do you think the brain does? We have aa 30-something girl in our nursing home who had a brain injury and is in a vegatative state. Her brain will never function; she will never be able to think, reason,express herself. How does her intellect come into play?

Now, if there wss someway to reverse her brain damage, she’d be able to think…

Also, can you provide proof that that is Catholic dogma that we think with our intellect, not our brains?

Faith, since you keep repeating the question “Do we think with our brains or not?” As I said in the above quote, the answer to your question is we do not think with our brains but we think and reason and have intelligence with our intellect which is a spiritual, immaterial power of the soul (however, in our present condition as a spirit body composite, the intellect cannot think or understand without turning to the phantasms, see below). The intellect as well as our will have an operation or act that is independent of any bodily organ. This is why the souls of those who have passed away in this life (and are without their bodies) and who are either in heaven, purgatory, or hell can think, understand and love as the angels do. Obviously, the souls in hell do not love God as those souls in purgatory or heaven.

If we want to get an idea of what the human brain does which along with the rest of the body is animated by the soul, we can look at the natures of animals such as dogs, cats, and horses who also have brains. The brain is a corporeal organ of some sensory power of the soul in man and beast through which in tandem with the exterior senses such as sight or hearing, both man and beast have sensory knowledge. Fundamentally, sensory knowledge is the extent of the human brain as well as the brains in other animals as a corporeal organ of some sensory power of the soul.

As to your question of some people who have brain damage and thus are like in a vegetative state unable to think: This is because in our present condition in which the soul is united to the body, the operation or act of the intellect always makes use of what is called in philosophy “phantasms.” These phantasms are a product of the soul’s sensory powers which make use of a corporeal or bodily organ in their operation. Our natural way of knowing comes through our senses. For example, the soul’s power of sight makes use of the eyes to see. If the eyes are defective such as in blindness, the defective eyes will hinder the soul’s power of sight. Similarly, a damaged brain which is a corporeal organ of some sensory power of the soul (not the intellect) and from which the phantasms are probably produced in tandem with the soul’s interior sensitive powers hinders the operation of the intellect and thus a person is not able to think or reason or use their intellect.

In conclusion, human beings have sensory knowledge derived from the senses in common with other animals. Only human beings possess intellectual knowledge or intelligence, understanding, and can reason unlike other animals. We have knowledge of good and evil, morals, the commandments of God; we can have knowledge and an understanding of God and love God in a way animals cannot. The spiritual powers of intellect and will in humans is an entirely spiritual, immaterial operation, i.e., for example, the very act of understanding performed by the intellect is independent of any corporeal or bodily organ which is not the case with the sensory powers of the soul which make use of a bodily organ. However, since human beings are a soul or spirit and body composite and in our present condition here on earth, the intellect’s act of understanding must make use of the “phantasms.” These phantasms are a product of the soul’s sensory powers which make use of a corporeal or bodily organ in their operation. It is from these phantasms, that the intellect abstracts the essence, nature, and substance of things.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I cant get the link to work, but this might be it:

Google: controlmind.info The Difference Between Brain and Mind

controlmind.info/component/content/article/1-introduction/3-the-differences-between-brain-and-mind

" Home The Difference Between Brain and Mind
A computer required hardware to perform its function. And the hardware need software to make it run. Without software, hardware would be useless and without hardware, software can not be used. Brain is like the hardware and mind is like the software. But in reality, the difference between brain mind are more complicated than software and hardware.

In our culture we sometimes use the words brain and mind interchangeably even though they really do refer to separate, although often overlapping, concepts. The brain is an organ but the mind isn’t. The brain is the physical place where the mind resides. It is a vessel in which the electronic impulses that create thought are contained. With the brain you coordinate your moves, your organism, your activities and transmit impulses. But you use the mind to think. You can muse at what happened, what is scheduled and what maybe will happen.

The mind is the manifestations of thought, perception, emotion, determination, memory and imagination that takes place within the brain. Mind is often used to refer especially to the thought processes of reason. The mind is the awareness of consciousness we know, the ability to control what we do, and know what we are doing and why. It is the ability to understand. Animal are able to interpret their environments, but not understand them. whereas human are able to understand what happens around them, even if not the scientific reasoning for it, and therefore adapt. "

He incorrectly states that the mind is the manifestation of thought, perception, emotion, determination, memory, and imagination taking place in the brain. No doubt the mind uses the brain and is essentially dependent on it. But it does its own thinking. It uses the brain as a " sounding board, " so to speak. Everything we know comes through the brain through our sense organs. But the collation and sorting of all that data is done by the mind, not the brain. And it is the mind that produces the images ( phantasms ) the agent intellect uses to form concepts and ideas. Keep this in mind, the body does absolutely nothing that is not directed by the mind ( the soul ).

Linus2nd

 

[Faith1960]

Faith, since you keep repeating the question “Do we think with our brains or not?” As I said in the above quote, the answer to your question is we do not think with our brains but we think and reason and have intelligence with our intellect which is a spiritual, immaterial power of the soul (however, in our present condition as a spirit body composite, the intellect cannot think or understand without turning to the phantasms, see below). The intellect as well as our will have an operation or act that is independent of any bodily organ. This is why the souls of those who have passed away in this life (and are without their bodies) and who are either in heaven, purgatory, or hell can think, understand and love as the angels do. Obviously, the souls in hell do not love God as those souls in purgatory or heaven.

If we want to get an idea of what the human brain does which along with the rest of the body is animated by the soul, we can look at the natures of animals such as dogs, cats, and horses who also have brains. The brain is a corporeal organ of some sensory power of the soul in man and beast through which in tandem with the exterior senses such as sight or hearing, both man and beast have sensory knowledge. Fundamentally, sensory knowledge is the extent of the human brain as well as the brains in other animals as a corporeal organ of some sensory power of the soul.

As to your question of some people who have brain damage and thus are like in a vegetative state unable to think: This is because in our present condition in which the soul is united to the body, the operation or act of the intellect always makes use of what is called in philosophy “phantasms.” These phantasms are a product of the soul’s sensory powers which make use of a corporeal or bodily organ in their operation. Our natural way of knowing comes through our senses. For example, the soul’s power of sight makes use of the eyes to see. If the eyes are defective such as in blindness, the defective eyes will hinder the soul’s power of sight. Similarly, a damaged brain which is a corporeal organ of some sensory power of the soul (not the intellect) and from which the phantasms are probably produced in tandem with the soul’s interior sensitive powers hinders the operation of the intellect and thus a person is not able to think or reason or use their intellect.

In conclusion, human beings have sensory knowledge derived from the senses in common with other animals. Only human beings possess intellectual knowledge or intelligence, understanding, and can reasocn unlike other animals. We have knowledge of good and evil, morals, the commandments of God; we can have knowledge and an understanding of God and love God in a way animals cannot. The spiritual powers of intellect and will in humans is an entirely spiritual, immaterial operation, i.e., for example, the very act of understanding performed by the intellect is independent of any corporeal or bodily organ which is not the case with the sensory powers of the soul which make use of a bodily organ. However, since human beings are a soul or spirit and body composite and in our present condition here on earth, the intellect’s act of understanding must make use of the “phantasms.” These phantasms are a product of the soul’s sensory powers which make use of a corporeal or bodily organ in their operation.

Well, in English, I’d say the mind is in the brain.