What exactly is the soul?

[Blue_Horizon]

Is “how” a bad question?

I don’t believe I even implied that.
My small observation was that if “explaining how” is the criterion for choosing a clear “winner” then I would say of two one-eyed men, one blinded left, the other right … neither is a clear “winner” because both are incomplete in different ways.

Such is the debate between “memory as organ” and “memory as a dedicated power of the soul.”

Both have large areas of inexplicability and it is the reasonable prudential judgement of many that memory in matter is becoming much more understandable while the spirit world is not.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I don’t believe I even implied that.
My small observation was that if “explaining how” is the criterion for choosing a clear “winner” then I would say of two one-eyed men, one blinded left, the other right … neither is a clear “winner” because both are incomplete in different ways.

Such is the debate between “memory as organ” and “memory as a dedicated power of the soul.”

Both have large areas of inexplicability and it is the reasonable prudential judgement of many that memory in matter is becoming much more understandable while the spirit world is not.

I got the impression that JK considered the use of MRI equipment so revealing about reasoning, memory and something else, that the ignorance that gave rise to the belief in the soul had been left behind. He hasn’t answered, but he might be able to respond to the “how” question; who knows? If he doesn’t, never mind!, he has the right to believe on whatever hypothesis he prefers, but it will be clear that at any rate it has not been knowledge which has substituted ignorance, but one ignorance which has taken the place of another.

Regarding memory, why don’t you describe in which manner it is more understandable if it is seen as an organ instead of as a dedicated power of the soul. I just would like to know. It would be nice if you let us see.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

are soul and spirit the same? can anyone explain the relation to soul spirit and body? Doesn’t the brain animate our body? and give us emotions and thought?

The Holy Spirit is the bridegroom of the soul. The soul is who we are as a person. When the Holy Spirit acts upon the soul, the soul is moved closer and closer to God–who cleanses our souls through the marriage between the bridegroom and the bride, the Holy Spirit and the soul. This is what Catholics call the Unity of the Holy Spirit.

 

[inocente]

I got the impression that JK considered the use of MRI equipment so revealing about reasoning, memory and something else, that the ignorance that gave rise to the belief in the soul had been left behind. He hasn’t answered, but he might be able to respond to the “how” question; who knows? If he doesn’t, never mind!, he has the right to believe on whatever hypothesis he prefers, but it will be clear that at any rate it has not been knowledge which has substituted ignorance, but one ignorance which has taken the place of another.

Regarding memory, why don’t you describe in which manner it is more understandable if it is seen as an organ instead of as a dedicated power of the soul. I just would like to know. It would be nice if you let us see.

Here’s something. Sheila Nirenberg is a neuroscientist who is trying to help the blind to see using a prosthetic device. In a sighted person, the eyes send coded information into the brain by electrical signals. Researches already knew that the code is in essence a bit stream generated by cells firing in the eyes. Nirenberg is the first to “crack” the code.

4 minute BBC video of Nirenberg - bbc.com/future/story/20141111-the-code-that-may-treat-blindness
Proceedings of National Academy of Science paper - physiology.med.cornell.edu/faculty/nirenberg/lab/papers/PNAS-2012-Nirenberg-1207035109.pdf
Nirenberg’s home page - physiology.med.cornell.edu/faculty/nirenberg/lab/

Two points are worth noting. First, this bit stream (on/off pulses) is the only information which ever reaches the brain about what we see. Therefore the “movie” of the world which we see in our mind must be created by the brain from the bit stream alone, since that is the only information it ever has. Our visual memories may well be stored in similar fashion, as a set of pulses, which are then “played back” through the same pathways. It is known that hearing and touch work in a similar way. So there is already a weight of evidence regarding sense memories.

The other point is that those who believe the mind is supernatural generally don’t even try to find cures for blindness or deafness or mental illnesses, since they’ve already decided that the mind is in some immaterial inaccessible realm. Only by first assuming that the mind emerges purely from the physical is it possible to investigate cures to help the millions of sufferers in the world.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Regarding memory, why don’t you describe in which manner it is more understandable if it is seen as an organ instead of as a dedicated power of the soul. I just would like to know. It would be nice if you let us see.

I’ve already mentioned a significant empirical advance over the ancients that has philosophic ramifications.
Namely mechanisms and changes in biological matter evidence “recording” of historical sensible experiences (“sensible species”?) into brain matter itself.
If this be true we do not, like the ancients, need to infer memory is immaterial and hence (according to the ancients at least) has to be an additional power of an immaterial soul.

Surely you can finds these “materialist” (allegedly) observations on the Net for yourself expressed far more clearly than I do here.

The ancients (Aristotle Augustine) do not appear to have even speculated on this potentiality of matter (I would like to be shown mistaken).
Aquinas may have, and he consequently seems to have relegated much of the faculty of memory (ie along with imagination and vis aestemativa) to what we have in common with animals (a power of the “material soul” as some say).

Augustine saw the spiritual image of the Trinity in Man’s allegedly three immaterial powers of the Soul: intellect will and memory. I do not think Aquinas went along with this, one reason being that he seems to have seen memory as in some way “material”. Again I am relying on my Thomistic tertiary studies of 30 yrs ago on this point but I do not think I am mistaken in recollecting Aquinas versus Augustine.

 

[Vico]

Blue Horizon;13032471...:

St. Thomas argues that there must be an intellectual memory, because that which is acted upon must retain the effect of the agent all the more perfectly in proportion to its own stability. Since the impressions of sense leave lasting traces on the bodily which is subject to decay, — a fortiori the universal must, in some way, be stored up in the passive intellect, which is a spiritual faculty, permanent as the soul itself (I, Q., lxxix, a, 6-7).

Moore, T. (1911). Memory.
In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/10174a.htm

*Also.

Summa Theologica* I, 77, a 8, arg. 4
Objection 4. Further, memory is a power of the sensitive soul, as the Philosopher proves (De Memor. et Remin. 1). But memory remains in the separated soul; for it was said to the rich glutton whose soul was in hell: “Remember that thou didst receive good things during thy lifetime” (Luke 16:25). Therefore memory remains in the separated soul; and consequently the other powers of the sensitive part.

logicmuseum.com/authors/aquinas/summa/Summa-I-77-79.htm

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here’s something. Sheila Nirenberg is a neuroscientist who is trying to help the blind to see using a prosthetic device. In a sighted person, the eyes send coded information into the brain by electrical signals. Researches already knew that the code is in essence a bit stream generated by cells firing in the eyes. Nirenberg is the first to “crack” the code.

4 minute BBC video of Nirenberg - bbc.com/future/story/20141111-the-code-that-may-treat-blindness
Proceedings of National Academy of Science paper - physiology.med.cornell.edu/faculty/nirenberg/lab/papers/PNAS-2012-Nirenberg-1207035109.pdf
Nirenberg’s home page - physiology.med.cornell.edu/faculty/nirenberg/lab/

Two points are worth noting. First, this bit stream (on/off pulses) is the only information which ever reaches the brain about what we see. Therefore the “movie” of the world which we see in our mind must be created by the brain from the bit stream alone, since that is the only information it ever has. Our visual memories may well be stored in similar fashion, as a set of pulses, which are then “played back” through the same pathways. It is known that hearing and touch work in a similar way. So there is already a weight of evidence regarding sense memories.

Juan will answer for himself. However, I would like to point out that the " impulses " received by the sight center of the brain ( and similar " impulses " received by the other sense perceptors ) are just impulses. They do not imply memory retention by the material brain, nor do they imply an interpretation of these impulses by the material brain.

Interpreting these impulses and retaining them for futhure reference is a mental or immaterial operation. And this speaks to an immaterial source of interpretation and retention, an immaterial power of an immaterial subject, the immaterial soul.

The other point is that those who believe the mind is supernatural generally don’t even try to find cures for blindness or deafness or mental illnesses, since they’ve already decided that the mind is in some immaterial inaccessible realm. Only by first assuming that the mind emerges purely from the physical is it possible to investigate cures to help the millions of sufferers in the world.

This conclusion is unwarranted, can’t imagine why you would say such a thing.

Linus2nd

 

[GEddie]

Sight and hearing (and smell and touch) are physical, whether or not the mind is.

That is why they can be disabled by physical things like black cloth, cotton wadding or the cold virus.

The theory of the mind really is secondary to the physical human sensorium. That resides fully in the solid human body.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Aloysium]

Both the mind and the body reside in the person.

The body is continuous with the universe, the totality of material event of which it is an expression and in which it participates.

Neural events correlate with mental phenomena because each mode of understanding, each dimension is an aspect of the unity that is the person.

If you want to know the whereby the person physically cries, you can try to piece together how bodies reflect light, emit sound, how these are transmitted and detected by sensory receptors and how cells within the body interact resulting in infinitely complex bodily reactions that include biochemical changes in areas of the brain that correlate with feelings.

If you want to understand what is going on, you will require some understanding of the person’s psychological make-up as a human being, as well as their history, their relationships, self-image and so forth.

Always one person in relation to the cosmos with which he/she is one and, at the same time, from which one is separate.

The mind does not reside in the mind any more than the body, whose movements are understood as mental, resides in the mind. They both describe what it means to be, what constitutes a person.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Sheila Nirenberg is a neuroscientist . . . bbc.com/future/story/20141111-the-code-that-may-treat-blindness . . .

. . . Two points are worth noting. First, this bit stream (on/off pulses) is the only information which ever reaches the brain about what we see. Therefore the “movie” of the world which we see in our mind must be created by the brain from the bit stream alone, since that is the only information it ever has. Our visual memories may well be stored in similar fashion, as a set of pulses, which are then “played back” through the same pathways. It is known that hearing and touch work in a similar way. So there is already a weight of evidence regarding sense memories.

The other point is that those who believe the mind is supernatural generally don’t even try to find cures for blindness or deafness or mental illnesses, since they’ve already decided that the mind is in some immaterial inaccessible realm. Only by first assuming that the mind emerges purely from the physical is it possible to investigate cures to help the millions of sufferers in the world.

It is actually a lot more complicated than described.

When you talk about memory as physical, be aware that it is like the “memory” of the earth held in mountains.
In the body and CNS (name removed by moderator)articular, changes happen as a result of material interactions which last for varying periods of time.

I am not sure psychologists would agree that their field is supernatural.
Most would assert that there is more to science than is dreamt of by narrowly focussed particle physicists.
A mindless psychology is no better than a brainless one.

If you listen to the BBC video, what comes out primarily and chrystal clear is her passion for making a contributing, helping others.
This is what drives that which truly benefits humanity.
The philosophical notion that the mind emerges from the physical is wrong, and definitely is not a prerequisite for seeking material cures.

When people assert that the soul contains memory or the totality of the person’s existence, this does not mean that there are ghosts.
To exist in this world requires a physical body which has spatial and temporal dimensions.
The soul is eternal in the sense of being outside of time.
There is no evidence that it cannot access memories, or perhaps rather have them all present. When we want to remember something we pull in together all the fragments of sensory, emotional and cognitive information, to which specific patterns of cellular interaction, are related. Memory is in the brain as physical-psychological fragments of past experience, but it requires the mind to bring them together. The soul contains both.

 

[inocente]

Juan will answer for himself. However, I would like to point out that the " impulses " received by the sight center of the brain ( and similar " impulses " received by the other sense perceptors ) are just impulses. They do not imply memory retention by the material brain, nor do they imply an interpretation of these impulses by the material brain.

Interpreting these impulses and retaining them for futhure reference is a mental or immaterial operation. And this speaks to an immaterial source of interpretation and retention, an immaterial power of an immaterial subject, the immaterial soul.

I fear you missed the point. As you are looking at this post now, the only information entering your brain from your eyes is a stream of on/off pulses. Therefore your mind must be constructing the image which you see from that information alone. If it can do that in real time then it can do the same for memories, and we know how neurons form memories, for instance see here (noting that’s a museum site, not even remotely cutting edge).

But by all means offer up your explanation of how the stream of electrical pulses from your eyes makes its way into the immaterial realm, for instance where is the transmitter located, how does the immaterial realm decode and store those pulses, how does it avoid breaking conservation of energy and so on.

This conclusion is unwarranted, can’t imagine why you would say such a thing.

By all means link some research papers on the mind as an “immaterial source of interpretation and retention” which will help treat illnesses. But I think you won’t find many, if any. I think that’s because researchers can either put their energy and talent into trying to defend ye olde philosophical dogmas or they can put their energy and talent into finding treatments for illnesses, but they can’t do both.

But no worries, I guess the treatments they produce will also be made available to those who put their energy and talent into trying to defend ye olde philosophical dogmas.

 

[yppop]

I fear you missed the point. As you are looking at this post now, the only information entering your brain from your eyes is a stream of on/off pulses. Therefore your mind must be constructing the image which you see from that information alone.

Absolutely! The question is: what do you mean by the “mind” ? I believe that the neurons in the brain are immersed in a spiritual substance called “nous”. Because of this hylomorphic arrangement of “material” neurons and “spiritual” nous, there is a dual memory (agent and passive intellect?) present in the cranium. The mind consists of the “language” function of the material brain and the “translation function” of the nous. Symbols (words, musical notes, signals, etc.) are stored in the neuronal circuits that form the “material memory”. Percepts, concepts, meanings, emotions, feelings, qualia, and memes are stored in the nous as “perceptual memory”. The material memory is digital (discrete); the perceptual memory is analog (continuous).

If it can do that in real time then it can do the same for memories, and we know how neurons form memories, for instance…

Of course, when a neuronal circuit is formed, it becomes a memory of sorts, but no neuronal circuit however complex will be able to generate the experience of “redness”; it could only act as a referent to the location in the perceptual memory where “redness” is stored. This is what I mean by a translation function, namely, the nous translates the pattern of the neuronal circuits and presents us with an interpretation.

But by all means offer up your explanation of how the stream of electrical pulses from your eyes makes its way into the immaterial realm, for instance where is the transmitter located, how does the immaterial realm decode and store those pulses, how does it avoid breaking conservation of energy and so on.

If what you are asking to be explained is the interaction between an open synapse and the contiguous spiritual component then I can’t, no one can or ever will. We can only offer a plausible description of what we think we observe. That is all science ever does - observe and describe; no one can explain why energy is conserved for example.
Neurobiologists refer to the neurons that carry activation from the sense receptors to the central nervous system as the “afferent” neutrons. I refer to the phenomenon of experiencing qualia such as redness as an “afferent event”. The neurons that carry activation from the CNS to the muscle spindles that results in behavior are called the “efferent” neurons. I refer to my ability to instigate behavior by directing the nous to activate specific neutrons an “efferent event”. Not all behavior is the result of an efferent event, much behavior is the result of “hard wired” reflexive or involuntary motivations. Efferent events are generally the result of voluntary decisions, such events are manifested as the action of the “will”.

By all means link some research papers on the mind as an “immaterial source of interpretation and retention” which will help treat illnesses. But I think you won’t find many, if any. I think that’s because researchers can either put their energy and talent into trying to defend ye olde philosophical dogmas or they can put their energy and talent into finding treatments for illnesses, but they can’t do both.

Of course they can do both and if they did perhaps science would escape the intellectual cul-de-sac that they have created for themselves. However as you point out illnesses of the physical variety at least are associated with the “material” makeup of the body and there is no need for non-material answers. However those materialistic scientists who go out of their way to claim there is no need for God because they have all the answers are detrimental to the moral fiber of humanity, a potential greater illness. I wish only that the materialistic scientists grant the possibility of a spiritual component of reality and stop corrupting the vulnerable minds of the young.

Peace,
Yppop

 

[ynotzap]

How would modern science explain the “real world phenomenon” that “we know that we know” A person knowing himself, or self-awareness? It it possible for a material entity, or substance to invert on itself, when basic science explains that two things can’t occupy the same space at the same time, when science (reference: Newtonian science) treats the physical world as “part outside part” The power to reflect back on ourselves, at the same time conversing with another, and knowing that I am conversing? If I tell you that spiritual things can not be sensed but are real, how would you approach such a problem.

You would have to approach it from deep reasoning, so called Metaphysics, and it would have to be right reasoning, based on accurate logic, and objective truth. Is the phenomenon of cause and effect found in the “real world” or is it someones subjective thought. is it a scientific principle found in the statement “for every action there is a reaction” And why is it said " every cause has an effect, is it true only in the physical world? To look for these answers we won’t see the forest if our noses are glued to a single tree. You will never come to the discovery of the spiritual by examining the physical, not matter how refined that examination is, or the apparatus used in examining it, no matter how technologically advanced it may be. You will remain “earth bound” as long as you do not make the logical jump to another area of thought called Metaphysics.

Is matter capable of moving itself? What is energy, does it exist apart from matter? What are mental abstractions? Is there such a thing? What is "meaning? What is thought? Can matter order itself, or give itself existence? Can rational intelligence be derived from matter? Modern science does not supply these answers, but they are supplied by ancient philosophers who have discovered truths that still apply, and will always apply if they are based on accurate logic, objective facts, and universal truths, and bear repeating. New discoveries in science won’t change them. Yet many will remain unconvinced. There are mental conditions needed to obtain these truths, avoid bias and prejudice,have sincerity in the search for truth and a mental capacity for dealing with highly abstract thought. (and a spiritual condition, a morally pure mind- for those who understand)

 

[Aloysium]

Absolutely! The question is: what do you mean by the “mind” ? I believe that the neurons in the brain are immersed in a spiritual substance called “nous”. Because of this hylomorphic arrangement of “material” neurons and “spiritual” nous, there is a dual memory (agent and passive intellect?) present in the cranium. The mind consists of the “language” function of the material brain and the “translation function” of the nous. Symbols (words, musical notes, signals, etc.) are stored in the neuronal circuits that form the “material memory”. Percepts, concepts, meanings, emotions, feelings, qualia, and memes are stored in the nous as “perceptual memory”. The material memory is digital (discrete); the perceptual memory is analog (continuous).

Of course, when a neuronal circuit is formed, it becomes a memory of sorts, but no neuronal circuit however complex will be able to generate the experience of “redness”; it could only act as a referent to the location in the perceptual memory where “redness” is stored. This is what I mean by a translation function, namely, the nous translates the pattern of the neuronal circuits and presents us with an interpretation.

. . . Neurobiologists refer to the neurons that carry activation from the sense receptors to the central nervous system as the “afferent” neutrons. I refer to the phenomenon of experiencing qualia such as redness as an “afferent event”. The neurons that carry activation from the CNS to the muscle spindles that results in behavior are called the “efferent” neurons. I refer to my ability to instigate behavior by directing the nous to activate specific neutrons an “efferent event”. Not all behavior is the result of an efferent event, much behavior is the result of “hard wired” reflexive or involuntary motivations. Efferent events are generally the result of voluntary decisions, such events are manifested as the action of the “will”. . .

Interesting. Following your line of thought, I would also note that neurons, as part of the human body which is material, are continuous with matter that surrounds us. It is all pretty much an infinite set of relative interactions within the totality that is the universe. We may think that the light that has yet to travese the pupil and cause a photoreaction in the retina is “not-me”, but why the restriction? Would your “nous” be restricted in space and time to the body, and thus have dimensions? Does it define the dimensions that define us? Would you consider that it extends as much into the world as do our perceptions and thoughts? Is it undefined, but defining? Would it be who we actually are?

 

[GEddie]

Interesting. Following your line of thought, I would also note that neurons, as part of the human body which is material, are continuous with matter that surrounds us. It is all pretty much an infinite set of relative interactions within the totality that is the universe. We may think that the light that has yet to travese the pupil and cause a photoreaction in the retina is “not-me”, but why the restriction? Would your “nous” be restricted in space and time to the body, and thus have dimensions? Does it define the dimensions that define us? Would you consider that it extends as much into the world as do our perceptions and thoughts? Is it undefined, but defining? Would it be who we actually are?

Just my $.02.

The nous is limited in time to the live body, because it is absent from the dead body, or from time prior to birth when there was no body.

It is limited in space to the head of the body, not because it has dimensions, but because the dimensional support structure of the neurons is there. To interact with the nous, you have to interface in some way with some part of the human body.

ICXC NIKA

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Is matter capable of moving itself? . . .

If you were to analyze all the activity in a human body living out a normal day, I believe you could derive physical explanations for every action.
If you want to understand the meanings of the gestures, words and feelings, you would get no explanation in terms of those physical interactions. You would have to appeal to the realm of mind.
To understand how and why it all is, you need to understand the unity that is a person - he who moves, thinks and feels, who is both dust and spirit as one.

 

[ynotzap]

If you were to analyze all the activity in a human body living out a normal day, I believe you could derive physical explanations for every action.
If you want to understand the meanings of the gestures, words and feelings, you would get no explanation in terms of those physical interactions. You would have to appeal to the realm of mind.
To understand how and why it all is, you need to understand the unity that is a person - he who moves, thinks and feels, who is both dust and spirit as one.

I pose these questions for others to examine, we know that matter can not move itself, but is moved by another. And the mind is not it’s own power. But these truths can only be explained by Metaphysics. This is how we arrive to the First unmoved mover, and
Uncaused cause, which makes no sense to those who do not understand Metaphysics.
Of course the advantage of our Faith gives us much confirmation and insight.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I fear you missed the point. As you are looking at this post now, the only information entering your brain from your eyes is a stream of on/off pulses. Therefore your mind must be constructing the image which you see from that information alone. If it can do that in real time then it can do the same for memories, and we know how neurons form memories, for instance see here (noting that’s a museum site, not even remotely cutting edge).

Lot’s of huge assumptions in this article and a number of unknowns. For example, just how do we know exactly what nurons and synapsis do, and how do scientists " see " exactly what is going on?. Do they see this things happening in real time, do they actually see synapses forming, and how do they conclude what they are doing?

Then, " A part of your brain called the hippocampus is vital for forming new memories. Scientists think that the experiences making up a memory are sent from the senses to the cortex, then on to areas surrounding the hippocampus. These ‘bind’ the memory together, before it is sent to the hippocampus itself, where information about context or location is added. " Scientists are making huge assumptions here, forming " conclusions " based on speculation.

But by all means offer up your explanation of how the stream of electrical pulses from your eyes makes its way into the immaterial realm, for instance where is the transmitter located, how does the immaterial realm decode and store those pulses, how does it avoid breaking conservation of energy and so on.

Fortunately, I don’t have to say much more than I have already said. Don’t know what you mean by ’ transmitter. ’ I have already admitted that our sense perceptors transfer sensed information to their respective brain sense centers. The conscious mind ( in some mysterious way we will never know ) observes what is taking place, collates the various types of information and stores it in the soul for later reference. And from this point we get into the discussion that has been going on on the thread, " How do we come to know things? "

I fail to see what the conservation of energy has to do with any of this.

By all means link some research papers on the mind as an “immaterial source of interpretation and retention” which will help treat illnesses. But I think you won’t find many, if any. I think that’s because researchers can either put their energy and talent into trying to defend ye olde philosophical dogmas or they can put their energy and talent into finding treatments for illnesses, but they can’t do both.

As I already noted, there is a lot wrong with this paragraph. As for research papers, I refer you to the 800 years of commentary on Aristotle’s Soul, beginning with Thomas Aquinas himself on that book and his S.T. Part1, ques 78, art 4.

Secondly, why is it necessary that any such information be useful for treating illnesses?

Is treating illnesses the only valuable pursuit for of intelligent men and women?

I think it is fine that some do and have done it very successfully. There is no reason to imply, by contrast, that philosophers/theologians have nothing valuable to offer mankind. A healthy body is wonderful, a heatly soul is priceless.

But of course there are many in the scientific commuinity who have studied some A/T philosophy at least and some who are quite proficient at it, so I don’t see that making an off hand value judgment tells us anything important. I admit it is very difficult to be expert in two fields. So what?

This was your original statement: " The other point is that those who believe the mind is supernatural generally don’t even try to find cures for blindness or deafness or mental illnesses, since they’ve already decided that the mind is in some immaterial inaccessible realm. Only by first assuming that the mind emerges purely from the physical is it possible to investigate cures to help the millions of sufferers in the world. "

I repeat, there is no justification for this statement. As I just pointed out many doctors and scientists believe in the supernatural, not to mention nurses. In fact it was the Catholic Church which began and established hospitals. Though the governments of the world are doing all they can to force us out.

Secondly, there is no proof that only those convinced that the mind " emerges from the physical " could possible in medical cures. These are highly prejucidal statements.

But no worries, I guess the treatments they produce will also be made available to those who put their energy and talent into trying to defend ye olde philosophical dogmas.

You really must try to restrain you anti-A/T philosophical prejudices, it is not becoming.

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

Because of the union of body and soul, every thought would produce some physical effect. For example, mental fatigue due to the limitations of the body. Even the most abstract thought would produce, if sustained for some time, extreme mental fatigue. Electrodes were touched to certain parts of the brain, and music was heard showing that these sense impressions were stored in the brain, and I would suspect so would abstract thoughts, because at no time were these abstract thought processes separated from the body but were executed in time, and place, and expressed in the brain as words, sounds. But meanings can only be understood and not sensed. So no physical experiment will reveal a spiritual soul. It lies in the rational mind, or in understanding, which is the function of the intellect, called the mind, and understanding is what is being achieved by Metaphysics,and the appetite of the mind is truth, that which is. There is physical truth, the existence of an object is physical truth. There are non-physical truths, knowledge of languages, science, religion, law, math, self-evident principles, fears and anxiety, peace, love, integrity, and thinking, rationalizing.

 

[GEddie]

Linus,

I think the reason conservation of energy was brought up is that, theoretically, information (i.e., in our heads) cannot be transferred (such as from the physical brain synapses to the spiritual nous, or mind) without the transfer of energy.

Because the nous or mind is nonphysical, there would if this theory were correct, appear to be a loss of energy within our head, but there is not.

ICXC NIKA.