What exactly is the soul?

[inocente]

For the moment, I will not criticize Mr. Tonegawa’s and Mr. Ramirez pretensions nor this conclusion; I will focus on what they say about memory. They say:

---

• Memories are stored in specific brain cells
• Personal memories, reside in the physical machinery of the brain
• we finally have proof that memories (engrams, in neuropsychology speak) are physical rather than conceptual.

---

What are those “engrams”?

***Engrams are means by which memory traces are stored as biophysical or biochemical changes in the brain (and other neural tissue) in response to external stimuli.

They are also sometimes thought of as a biological neural network or fragment of memory, ***

You did some good googling .

In computing, a neural network is a rough analog of how the brain is thought to work. Each neuron (node) has several connections to other nodes, and each outward connection has a weighting. When a node receives a signal it uses the weightings to decide which way to route the signal. The network is said to be able to learn if nodes adjust the weightings themselves in response to signals.

You might like to look at the following video of a simple network (expand it full screen to see what’s going on): coursera.org/course/neuralnets

There’s also a description of neural networks here: natureofcode.com/book/chapter-10-neural-networks/

While looking for those, I found this TED talk by an 18-year old who created a neural network to detect cancers. She gushes a bit, but I guess she’s allowed. youtube.com/watch?v=n-YbJi4EPxc

*So, in a certain way, I was wrong in my christian materialistic role, because I was saying that memories should be processes, and according to the MIT researchers, they are material structures. But if we consider that nothing material is really static (unless it is at zero Kelvin), we could say that “memories” are processes too, though ones in which molecules preserve their identity, while “thoughts” are processes in which molecules are transformed.

So, once it has been corrected, I will assume again my christian materialistic role: what is the physical chemical difference between one thought and another? It could be the reaction rate if it is the same chemicals which are participating in the reaction, or they might be different reactions taking place between different chemicals. But how many different chemicals are there in our brain?

Or perhaps in general it is as I said in the beginning: our mind is a set of physical chemical interactions taking place in a very specific organized body, the brain. I am not going to speculate (speculation is reserved to guys like Mr. Tonegawa and Mr. Ramirez), but without speculation I am absolutely sure that those physical chemical processes that we know as “the belief in immaterial spiritual substances” will disappear very soon, because…, because…, because those reactions are very old!*

So, a neural network consists of structure (the nodes and interconnections), memories (the weightings stored at each node), and processing (the signals). In a brain, these correspond respectively to the hardware (neurons and synapses), chemicals, and electric signals. Memories are formed by electrochemical processes which change the strength of the synaptic connections between neurons, the equivalents of the weightings. See articles linked many days ago along with article linked alongside that MIT item (neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/s4/chapter07.html).

The structure of the brain is of course far more complicated, there are specialist areas and so on.

Still absurd, right?

Hopefully you can see that your model in your materialistic role was wrong, and that’s why you thought it absurd. With a better model you don’t need infinite varieties of chemicals or whatnot. There are tons of research, unlike the immaterialistic, where the cupboard is empty.

You said before: “Trying to explain our mind by introspection has been the downfall of many philosophers of mind, since most of our mind is unconscious and not available to introspection.” Then I asked you for the names of some of those philosophers. Douglas R. Hofstadter does not practice any introspection in his book Gödel, Escher, Bach. I rather think he is on your side (or you are on his side).

It’s not about which side wins debating points though, rather about getting at the truth. For someone to whom introspection is infallible, the obvious example is Descartes.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t accept it yet, Blue. I need you to answer my post 830 above.

I am discussing a point of logic here JF, or rather your misunderstanding of experimental method and valid enough strategies for formulating hypotheses.

If you accept that philosophers understand substances only through their accidents (and therefore function is relevent) then your mischaracterisation of the alleged illogic in my approach below is clear.

Whether you want to understand this approach, because you disagree with the view hypothesized, is another matter.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I am discussing a point of logic here JF, or rather your misunderstanding of experimental method and valid enough strategies for formulating hypotheses.

If you accept that philosophers understand substances only through their accidents (and therefore function is relevent) then your mischaracterisation of the alleged illogic in my approach below is clear.

Whether you want to understand this approach, because you disagree with the view hypothesized, is another matter.

What is clear to me is that for some reason, or lack of reason, you don’t want to answer my question. Answering it would have been easier than designing your comment above.

I am not evading the discussion, Blue, and to show that what I say is true, I am confirming you that I agree that philosophers who use the notion of substance as a basic one in their doctrines, derive it from the consideration of what they call accidents. Now, I don’t believe that you want to postulate a substance to explain machines’ functionalities. It seems to me that in your opinion their “recognition” functionality does not require any substance at all (understanding the term “substance” as scholastics do) to be explained.

But that is to go too fast. I prefer to go step by step. Could you please answer my question in post 830.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What is clear to me is that for some reason, or lack of reason, you don’t want to answer my question. Answering it would have been easier than designing your comment above.

I am not evading the discussion, Blue, and to show that what I say is true, I am confirming you that I agree that philosophers who use the notion of substance as a basic one in their doctrines, derive it from the consideration of what they call accidents. Now, I don’t believe that you want to postulate a substance to explain machines’ functionalities. It seems to me that in your opinion their “recognition” functionality does not require any substance at all (understanding the term “substance” as scholastics do) to be explained.

But that is to go too fast. I prefer to go step by step. Could you please answer my question in post 830.

Instead of dragging out your issue with my logic, which I and most common sense people bothering to read the discussion will regard as perfectly acceptable and resolved… how about just coming out with the unstated deeper problem you are alluding to?

The cloak and dagger “covered hole” debating techniques are transparent and getting a tad tiresome and counter-productive to good faith discussion.
Thanks.

 

[Richca]

richca: In reference to your post 82l; In Physics 1V, 6 (213b g) Aristotle refers to the principle of activity in the sentient (physical soul) to a principle existing in the embryo- as the intrinsic principle of motion in an animal soul. When the spermatozoa unites with the ovum, we have a fertilization, the beginning of sentient life. The sperm is a living, physical

entity that is capable of physical motion that starts the activity in the corporeal body.

 

[Richca]

Motion is involved in the generation of plants and animals. But, the issue in my opinion is whether or not you hold to the hylemorphic constitution of material substances which I do hold too. In the generation of animals, there is a power in the semen or sperm derived from the generative power of the soul of the male parent which when united to the ovum, egg, or matter of the female parent educes the soul or substantial form from this mixture which constitutes the offspring in its being. The souls of animals and plants are not immediately created by God as the spiritual souls of humans are. They are a product of nature or natural generation. DNA appears to me to pertain to the body and matter of living things as it is found in the body and it is made out of matter or the elements. I suppose it is possible that in the eduction of the souls of animals from the mixture of the semen and egg, DNA may be instrumentally involved somehow. Upon fertilization or conception of the semen and egg, the soul of an animal is generated and a new animal is substantially produced. The nutritive or generative power in the soul of this new animal instrumentally uses the DNA in its matter for the development of its body and probably for other biological processes.

 

[Richca]

So, I’m going to start with trying to understand plants and go from there.

What I get from your effort to explain this (thank you so much) is that

• plants have souls.
• their souls have 3 powers
• the first nutritive, would be that they have the capacity to transform lesser forms of what modern science defines as “matter”, “elements” in this classical philosophical sense, into themselves
• the second, augmentative, has to do with their capacity to grow and mature, again utilizing that which they draw in from the “elements”/“matter” around them.
• the third, generative power permits replication.

Since modern science is not concerned with soul, these three powers are understood as being merely the results of the underlying qualities of the component “elements” - DNA etc…

Although the field of biology would seem to be based on the concept that there does exist a vegetive soul,
that plants do exist, rather than collections of biochemical (i.e. carbon based chemistry) activity,
it is not recognized as such,
that the plant would be as primary as are the subatomic, atomic, molecular events of which it is comprised.

That a plant exists, I suppose might be seen as a purely subjective phenomenon, by some/most modern biochemists.

Your feed-back would be appreciated; hopefully I am making some sense.

Yes, well, we perceive things as wholes which is why I think we have universal concepts such as man, horse, dog, tree. The parts of a whole are for the perfection of the whole and every whole is greater than its part. When I look at a tree and ask myself “what is it?” I answer, “it is a tree,” though I can also perceive it has parts such as branches, leaves, and trunk. The concept tree is a universal concept for it applies to all trees and it is a work of the intellect. We get the concept tree from the tree itself by way of its substantial form through which it is a tree and a particular kind such as an oak tree.

 

[ynotzap]

The sperm may be a living physical entity but it is not without form as no matter is. Matter without form is kind of like a lump of clay without form if we were to use our imagination. Strictly speaking, however, prime matter which is formless cannot be imagined, it is devoid of any characteristics by which one could even try to imagine it.

 

[Richca]

I understand the hylomorphic ( the union of two substances- matter and spirit) is just that, the spiritual soul is united to matter as co-principles. this can not be said of an "material soul, or sentient soul. The soul is the form of the body in humans. Is a material soul the substantial form of a sentient body, and if it is what is the difference there is a difference. Can we say that any material soul has anything of the “subsistent spirit” of man. You said it yourself, when the animal dies it resolves into elemental compounds.

 

[ynotzap]

richca: there is also something else to consider, matter or material things can not order themselves or bring themselves into existence.Things show in their nature an organization which is designed to an end, a completeness, to a fulfillment of all it’s potentials. So when we see in the animal, we see an organization, and not only an organization but also motion, neither of which is possible to matter, or material things. The source is obvious, God, the creator, and the programer. the reason that what is moved is moved by another is that to move is to be in act, and if act (movement) was part of the nature of material things, or even spiritual thing, then to be in act is to be all that it can be, there would be no potency, just pure act, and that can only be attributed to God, who is Pure Act and impossible to created things thus we have the principle of “cause and effect” and “act and potency” Secondary causes can be found in material things. It is hard to keep metaphysical concepts straight, and one can understand why many people would find it undesirable, it is mental discipline, and hard work. And even in oneself, one wonders if he presented it the way he should have. We all try, we are driven to know the truth. that’s where our Faith supercedes reason, and does not really conflict with the results of right reasoning, but our nature is weak, and subject to fallibility so when mistakes are made we accept it and try to correct it.

 

[Richca]

richca: there is also something else to consider, matter or material things can not order themselves or bring themselves into existence.Things show in their nature an organization which is designed to an end, a completeness, to a fulfillment of all it’s potentials. So when we see in the animal, we see an organization, and not only an organization but also motion, neither of which is possible to matter, or material things. The source is obvious, God, the creator, and the programer. the reason that what is moved is moved by another is that to move is to be in act, and if act (movement) was part of the nature of material things, or even spiritual thing, then to be in act is to be all that it can be, there would be no potency, just pure act, and that can only be attributed to God, who is Pure Act and impossible to created things thus we have the principle of “cause and effect” and “act and potency” Secondary causes can be found in material things. It is hard to keep metaphysical concepts straight, and one can understand why many people would find it undesirable, it is mental discipline, and hard work. And even in oneself, one wonders if he presented it the way he should have. We all try, we are driven to know the truth. that’s where our Faith supercedes reason, and does not really conflict with the results of right reasoning, but our nature is weak, and subject to fallibility so when mistakes are made we accept it and try to correct it.

Thanks for the post. Aristotle and the scholastics say that metaphysics is the most difficult science to learn, i.e., by the natural light of our reason. It is defined as the science of being as being. Just by the definition, a person could say I think “What the heck is that?”
The reason why it is so difficult is that it is the most abstract or elevation above matter than all the other sciences. Our souls are united to our bodies and we naturally gain knowledge through our senses and so we kind of feel at home with the senses, indeed, we can’t really escape them. But the intellect can rise above the senses and sensible objects and consider beings which can both exist without matter and be conceived without matter such as angels and of course God. God is the highest being metaphysics studies which is called natural theology. God is also in the highest degree of immateriality. He is Being itself. It is interesting to note that our concept of being is the widest, most universal concept we have. It applies to everything that is or exists. Aquinas took the concept being a step further, to the act-of-being. His metaphysical insight essentially reached the heights the human intellect can go by the natural light of reason in metaphysical thinking. This is not to say that metaphysics or philosophy is a closed system. It is intrinsically open because Christian philosophy looks at reality and reality is immense. It is open to further insights as long as one remains faithful to its principles. Following the principles of St Thomas and in light of revelation, Popes in recent times have made advancements in political philosophy, social justice, human rights, the State, etc.

Being and existence are kind of synonomous in the english language. So, some Thomists say act-of-existing in place of act-of-being. But, act-of-being is the more literal translation of Aquinas and philosophically and for historical reasons, to be and to exist do not quite mean the same thing. Existence is the fact of being or the result of having esse the act-of-being. For St Thomas, God is Ipsum Esse Subsistens, Subsistent To Be (Act of Being) Itself. God’s nature or essence is simply to be. The ultimate structure or composition in creatures is a created act-of-being and their essence or substance. The essence is related to the act-of-being as potency to act. As you can see, this is very metaphysical. But it makes sense. We all exist or have existence (I’m using existence here as referring to the act-of-being). Does being or existence have some kind of relation to us or is it some kind of component to us? Each of us are beings. Yes, says St Thomas. The act-of-being is the most perfect of all things and that by which everything is made actual.

 

[Richca]

Thanks for the post. Aristotle and the scholastics say that metaphysics is the most difficult science to learn, i.e., by the natural light of our reason. It is defined as the science of being as being. Just by the definition, a person could say I think “What the heck is that?”

(continued)
I was thinking the other day about the concept of substantial forms and how difficult this concept can be to grasp as it is understood by Aristotle and the scholastics. Substantial forms for Aristotle are a real component of real things. It is a principle along with matter that constitute the substance of things which underlies the accidents. Due to this difficulty, many modern philosophers such as Rene Descartes abandoned the idea altogether probably because they simply didn’t understand it, maybe they were trying to imagine substance but substance cannot be imagined. Modern science has no concept of substantial forms.

As I was thinking about this, the thought came to me about the example Aristotle used at times to illustrate the four causes. Think about this. Take for example, a statue say of Michaelangelo made out of gold. Our intellects can distinguish between the gold or matter and the shape or form. The form is like imprinted in the gold, inseparable from it. We can’t reduce this object to just matter, in this instance it is only composed of one element, gold. We can’t just say that is gold. This would not give us a full explanation of the object. There is a formal element going on here which is not the gold or matter, namely, the shape. It is not just gold, but a statue of gold. The form or shape placing the object into a class of things, statues. This is actually an example of an accidental form because the gold is a substance and shape is actually an accident of a substance in the category of quality if I’m not mistaken. You could melt the statue and form something else out of it such as a tabernacle. The same kind of idea Aristotle applies to all natural material substances. Matter is like pliable and the substantial form of a thing is what makes a thing what it is, an oak tree, dog, horse, etc. All material substances also have accidents.

We all do not have the intellect of a Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, or Aquinas but I think they saw more clearly something most of us probably don’t. We use universal concepts all the time, every day, and we are probably referring to substantial forms of things all the time without even knowing it. In Plato’s works, the theory that forms, ideas, or universal concepts have objective reality began with Socrates. Plato worked it out more but he held to a kind of separate world of immaterial subsistent forms which the material things of this world participate in. Aristotle placed the forms as a substantial element or component of the things in this world. The separate world of ideas of Plato, St Augustine placed in the divine mind of God. According to Plato and Aristotle, if we are to have any scientific knowledge at all, our universal concepts must have objective reality and truth.

 

[ynotzap]

Since the topic of logic came up in this thread, and it is used in the proofs for the existence of the soul of humans I thought it would be beneficial to all participants. So for what it’s worth: The information was taken from a book titled “Philosophy of Science” an Introduction. by Paul R. Durbin, O.P., St Stephen’s College. Dover, Mass.

Out of a long and patient critique of the Aristotelian theory of science there developed a method called “Logic” not as a science, but purely as an instrument. Logic is a tool sought not for it’s own sake but for it’s utility in furthering science. Logic is an instrumental intellectual state or instrumental discipline, created by philosophers for the sake of philosophy which constructs second notions in the concept of things, and make them into instruments by which in all things the true may be known and the false discerned (I, XX)

For the sciences are nothing else than logical methods put to use (De methodis I, 1) Method is "an intellectual instrument producing knowledge of the unknown from the known- all method must be from cause to effect- there are only two possible methods “composition and resolution” The scientific progress from known to unknown is either from cause to effect, or effect to cause, the former is the “demonstrative method” the latter "resolutive. there is not other procedure which generates a certain knowledge of things (III, 17)

Demonstrative method is a “syllogism” generating science from propositions that are necessary, immediate, better known, and the causes of the conclusion. Resolution method is a syllogism consisting of necessary propositions, which lead from posterior things and effects better known to the discovery of prior things and causes (III, 18)

Since because of our mental weakness, the principles from which proof is to be derived are unknown to us, and since we cannot take our departure from the unknown, we must follow another way on which we are led by means of the resolutive to the discovery of principles, so that after they are once found, we can prove the natural phenomena and effects from them (III, 18) The resolutive method is thus the servant of the demonstrative.

The end of the demonstrative method is perfect science, which is knowledge of things through their causes, but the end of the resolutive method is discovery rather than science, by resolution we seek causes from their effects so that afterwards know effects from their causes, not so that we may rest in a knowledge of the causes themselves. (III, 18)

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Instead of dragging out your issue with my logic, which I and most common sense people bothering to read the discussion will regard as perfectly acceptable and resolved… how about just coming out with the unstated deeper problem you are alluding to?

The cloak and dagger “covered hole” debating techniques are transparent and getting a tad tiresome and counter-productive to good faith discussion.
Thanks.

Ups!

Blue, in all good faith, if you have the acceptance of most common sense people for your logic, I don’t mind if you continue right away with with your empirical research to determine if certain machines, animals and humans are the same in regards to “recognition” ability. I don’t have the time to show you that it is not the case. Life is short and I have some other things to do.

 

[Richca]

Actually the idea of substantial forms in the Aristotlelian/Thomistic tradition is not that hard to grasp once one has the proper idea of matter as understood in this tradition. And this is the key point. With the advent of modern philosophy and science, Rene Descartes identified the accident of quantity in the A/T tradition with matter and so he postulated that extended matter or bodies are substance. For him, there are two kinds of substances, namely, mind or thinking substances and extended material substances or bodies. He did away with substantial forms. Down to our own day, I think we have a tendency to think of matter as a substance or something that exists in its own right. In the A/T philosophical/metaphysical tradition, this is a serious error.

To understand the A/T position concerning matter and bodies, we need to disengage our imagination from the idea that matter is a substance or exists in its own right. The essence of matter in the A/T tradition, is pure potentiality. Matter in itself, prime matter, has the potentiality to be or exist but not actual being. Prime matter in itself is an indeterminate principle without any characteristics of its own, no size, shape, dimensions, color, rarity, density, or anything else. It is simply in potentiality to all such characteristics which are determined by forms. Forms are the determining principles in material substances. Forms are acts while matter is potentiality. Form is the act of matter. Prime matter does not exist or have being without form. Material substances are composed of a determining principle, the substantial form, and an indeterminate principle which is prime matter… Forms determine the matter, inform it. Accidental forms further modify the substance in one way or another.

Now, substance and accidents are one of the first divisions of being. These are the ten categories of being of Aristotle. Whatever exists or has being is either going to be a substance or accident except being itself which transcends the categories. Being is not in any one category but is in all of them. Prime matter is a substantial principle of a material substance so it is in the catergory of substance, not because it is a being itself but because it is a substantial component of a material substance.

Accordingly, if we were to ask ourselves “What is it that makes a horse a horse and not an elephant, tiger, or something other than a horse; or what gives it the nature of a horse?”, we can eliminate matter right off the bat. Prime matter only has the potentiality to be the matter of a horse nor does it determine anything. Forms are acts and they determine so it is either going to be a substantial form or accidental form that makes a horse a horse. Obviously our choice here is going to be a substantial form that along with matter constitutes the substance of the horse. The substance of a thing is the stable and permanent element of a thing that perdures through all the accidental changes a thing may go through. For example, we have gone through a lot of changes since we were born into the world. We have grown in quantity, shape, knowledge, experience of life, etc. But our substance has remained throughout all these changes, we are the same person now as when we were babies and young kids. The substance is the cause of a thing’s proper accidents. Some accidents are caused by some exterior agent. The substance underlies the accidents.