What exactly is the soul?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wiggbuggie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Linusthe2nd said:
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
Click to expand...
I disagree.
 
Richca said:
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.
Click to expand...
Have you read Aquinas’ commentay on A’s Memory and Remembering yet? He would make the " common sense " the location of imagination, fantasy, and memory. But he says that memory is in the sentient soul. But Thomas himself says that man has only one soul and that is the intellectual soul. So for man at least, memory would have to reside in the intellective soul. And I would say that the intellective soul also forms images, fantasies, and phantasms from the data in the " common sense. "

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
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 :D.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
I think Innocente well summarises the stance of the ISS supporters here.
The question of whether this is the Church’s infallible position is another matter entirely.

As Phil of nature would not seem to be a matter of faith or morals I suggest not.
All this soul talk, at least the higher levels, may one day be treated like Copernicus and Galileo.
Like the alleged virgin birth physical details… sure, we must believe Mary was always a virgin but the Church does not have a defined teaching on the physical details that may necessitate… certainly not that Jesus didn’t exit along the birth canal as the ancients/tradition believes.
Likewise we do believe in an afterlife, whether that necessitates canonization of Aristotle’ nat Phil… i don’t think so despite alleged infallible statements.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Have you read Aquinas’ commentay on A’s Memory and Remembering yet? He would make the " common sense " the location of imagination, fantasy, and memory. But he says that memory is in the sentient soul. But Thomas himself says that man has only one soul and that is the intellectual soul. So for man at least, memory would have to reside in the intellective soul. And I would say that the intellective soul also forms images, fantasies, and phantasms from the data in the " common sense. "

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Linus for the love of God please do a course on Aquinas’ Phil of Man before putting this misleading and unhelpful misunderstanding of Aquinas 101 on a Catholic apologetics forum.
 
How about this. Tell me the names of current scientists or doctors who believe the mind is separate from the brain. I think i know what my neuro would say.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
I think Innocente well summarises the stance of the ISS supporters here.
The question of whether this is the Church’s infallible position is another matter entirely.

As Phil of nature would not seem to be a matter of faith or morals I suggest not.
All this soul talk, at least the higher levels, may one day be treated like Copernicus and Galileo.
Like the alleged virgin birth physical details… sure, we must believe Mary was always a virgin but the Church does not have a defined teaching on the physical details that may necessitate… certainly not that Jesus didn’t exit along the birth canal as the ancients/tradition believes.
Likewise we do believe in an afterlife, whether that necessitates canonization of Aristotle’ nat Phil… i don’t think so despite alleged infallible statements.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is Catholic Dogma that each man and woman have an individual, eternal, rational soul, created, in time by God. Is God a liar then? ( See Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma ).

Linus2nd
 
Faith1960 said:
How about this. Tell me the names of current scientists or doctors who believe the mind is separate from the brain. I think i know what my neuro would say.
Click to expand...
So you don’t believe you have an eternal, rational soul, created immediately by God? Very strange position for a Catholic to take.

Linus2nd
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Linus for the love of God please do a course on Aquinas’ Phil of Man before putting this misleading and unhelpful misunderstanding of Aquinas 101 on a Catholic apologetics forum.
Click to expand...
Blue, what is your position? Do we think with our minds or brains?

Is the mind in the brain or somewhere else in the body?

Because all this fancy talk is confusing to me. :rolleyes:
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Yes, it is Catholic Dogma that each man and woman have an individual, eternal, rational soul, created, in time by God. Is God a liar then? ( See Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma ).

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Nobody is disputing that.
 
ynotzap said:
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
Click to expand...
When you ask if the soul is spiritual… that does signal you have the wrong end of the stick - at least when discussing Aristotle/Aquinas tradition.

Likewise any talk of the soul that implies place or in.
This talk, at best is only analogical.
Even Linus suffers from this physicalist understanding of soul a little.
The only reason we might say a soul permeates the whole body or is in the body or leaves the body is because of cause and effect.
A soul is not actually subject to place or containment because it is beyond those categories being immaterial.
It is only “there” insofar as its “presence” is needed to explain local material effects. In fact, if such place talk was legitimate we could probably just as validly say a soul operated a body by remote control from the far side of the moon.
Such is much how Aristotle understood the celestial bodies to be controlled.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
I think Innocente well summarises the stance of the ISS supporters here.
The question of whether this is the Church’s infallible position is another matter entirely.

As Phil of nature would not seem to be a matter of faith or morals I suggest not.
All this soul talk, at least the higher levels, may one day be treated like Copernicus and Galileo.
Like the alleged virgin birth physical details… sure, we must believe Mary was always a virgin but the Church does not have a defined teaching on the physical details that may necessitate… certainly not that Jesus didn’t exit along the birth canal as the ancients/tradition believes.
Likewise we do believe in an afterlife, whether that necessitates canonization of Aristotle’ nat Phil… i don’t think so despite alleged infallible statements.
Click to expand...
The rational soul (“ISS”) is an article of faith.

Without it, there can be no human afterlife.

ICXC NIKA
 
Faith1960 said:
Well, in English, I’d say the mind is in the brain.
Click to expand...
If this was the case, then the Catholic Church and the Catholic faith is in error which amounts to saying that the Holy Spirit who is God and who guides the Church to all truth, is in error.
 
Richca said:
If this was the case, then the Catholic Church and the Catholic faith is in error which amounts to saying that the Holy Spirit who is God and who guides the Church to all truth, is in error.
Click to expand...
Not really.

The mind can reside in the brain/head/body, without, because nonphysical, being any of them.

And certainly, while one is alive, the mind occupies the human body in some way or form.

ICXC NIKA
 
Faith1960 said:
Is the mind in the brain or somewhere else in the body?
Click to expand...
The mind is nonphysical, but anchored to the body.

We can think of the mind as residing in the head, because a) the neurons used for thought are there and b) we see, hear and smell from our heads, so the mind makes more sense there than in, say, our hands.

ICXC NIKA
 
Richca said:
If this was the case, then the Catholic Church and the Catholic faith is in error which amounts to saying that the Holy Spirit who is God and who guides the Church to all truth, is in error.
Click to expand...
Not true.
 
Yes, it is Catholic Dogma that each man and woman have an individual, eternal, rational soul, created, in time by God. Is God a liar then? ( See Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma ).
Click to expand...
Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Well that’s a complete non sequitur.

Books are written by human beings not by God Linus.
Dogmas that have partial content reasonably judged to pronounce on purely natural matters or concepts or scientia I accept prudentially and respectfully.

The upcoming Encyclical I will treat likewise.
But to accept that GW is man made because a Pope said so, even dogmatically, such a thing simply is not possible or Catholic Linus.

Likewise the soul.
The Jews and Early Church believed in eternal life for reasons other than Greek soul philosophy and so do I.
If Greek tradition lends strength to your belief that’s great, but don’t put all your weight on that crutch, it may one day fail and such misplaced faith with it.
 
GEddie said:
The rational soul (“ISS”) is an article of faith.

Without it, there can be no human afterlife.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
This is a philosophy forum.
The point is that Phil seems unable to tightly prove what you believe.
Even Aristotle, whose defining and reasoning you seem to accept, did not clearly reach this conclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top