What exactly is the soul?

[Blue_Horizon]

" Immaterial " as opposed to material, so, it means spiritual.

I know what immaterial means, what I am asking you to explain is an “immaterial act.”

I would accept that creation ex nihilo is an “immaterial act”.

I would not accept that the circular motion of the celestial spheres is an “immaterial act” (as the ancients and even Aquinas seemed to think). Such efficient causality is to be attributed to the immaterial properties of matter not directly to an alleged immaterial entity (be it some sort of soul or angel that influences matter).

Gravity is afterall spiritual according to your definition is it not?
It certainly fooled the ancients - wise though they were.

Likewise they “explained” the immaterial acts of lodestone rather strangely as final cause (mineral appetite?) rather than a material agent cause (magnetism as a property of matter) acting at a distance on other material objects.

Memory requires consciousness of various things, and consciousness is a spiritual act.

I believe you are also confusing “recall” (a verb, an act) with “memory” (a noun meaning a faculty … or sometimes a particular object of recall).

As prev stated this is prob not something Aquinas could have ever articulated because “consciousness” did not have an equiv word in his day - its a new concept that everybody seems to understand on the surface but whose definition nobody agrees on when it comes to inter-disciplinary discussions.

Aren’t you making an invalid generalization here? If the ancients erred in a few things does not mean they erred in everything.

Why is it that when someone suggests the ancients got some specifics wrong (eg pure substances are infinitely divisible - Aristotle) or, due to particular blindspots of their age (a tendency to invoke the existence of spiritual entities). It is very clear that even the ancients too quickly jumped to “immaterial entities” to explain efficient causality of inexplicable material observations whether that be to do with the heavenly bodies, memory or semen.

I assume you accept the teaching of the Church that the soul is a spiritual substance and is the form of man. What does that mean to you?

In a Philosophy Forum I regard such assertions as irrelevant for “proving” the natural philosophy topic under discussion.

However as a Catholic thinker I do see a two-way “guiding” relationship between philosophy and Church Teaching. The likely conclusions of good philosophy can help critique what exactly Church Teaching may or may not be saying (which lay people often exaggerate or hold dogmatically when such may not be the case). Well understood Church Teaching can guide thinkers to investigate less likely philosophical understandings that eventually may turn out to be supported by nature in the long term.

I have my doubts that allegedly infallible Church Teaching actually is such when the subject matter involves purely natural philosophy principles… such is not a matter of faith or morals…though the faith teachings they allegedly “explain” and allegedly “prove” obviously are.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You asked me about Hades and that is what I posted on, not on memory.

Here are the rhetorical questions I put before you to reflect on the reasonable-ness of your unusual use of the Parable of Lazarus to deny that memory can in any way be material:

You are seriously trying to find philosophic truths in trivial detail of a parable?
Do you also believe there is physical water in Hades also?
And if so wouldn’t that mean physical bodies and brains too?

Which one do you believe the CCC is answering - and how does it contribute to your argument exactly?

Personally I believe you’ve lost focus and gone off on a personal tangent but maybe I have missed something.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t think anything is " stored " in the brain. I view the brain as the interface between the external world and the inner world of the soul.

I have done no " empirical " research other than what is found on the net.

I have seen nothing yet which would make me change my mind.Linus2nd…

Linus I am not trying to make you change your mind - your traditional position is well known, consistent and reasonable.

I am simply saying that your position does not intrinsically necessitate that more material based views are illogical.

Neither do all of these more material based views seem to necessarily require denial that Man is made in the image of God and that there is no life after death.

Both views have their strengths and weaknesses and both appear reasonable hypotheses.

The philosophic “clothes of faith” are not the faith - and may therefore change with the Ages accordingly.

 

[inocente]

If it was worthless, why did you give it to me. I just took it as a summary of available reseach. And I didn’t find it compelling.

Something for later, I would rather listen to the Royals game and watch Charlie Chan later .

There is a mountain of research on human memory readily available and I took the time to link some of it, but if some would prefer to ignore it and live in their happy place then that’s up to them.

That’s fine, then why did you insist on " goading the bear? "

If people were’nt constantly casting " nasty " aspersions there would be no reason to defend A/T. By the way there are no " dogmas " in philosophy, except in an equivical sense.

Dogma is defined as “a set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true”, and you present your favorite philosophers as authorities on this and a lot of other subjects. As I said before, there is a choice between finding out how the mind really works, with testable results which can be used for the benefit of the sick, or defending dogmas for the benefit of ye olde philosophers. You’ve made it clear which side you’re on .

 

[Vico]

Here are the rhetorical questions I put before you to reflect on the reasonable-ness of your unusual use of the Parable of Lazarus to deny that memory can in any way be material:

You are seriously trying to find philosophic truths in trivial detail of a parable?
Do you also believe there is physical water in Hades also?
And if so wouldn’t that mean physical bodies and brains too?

Which one do you believe the CCC is answering - and how does it contribute to your argument exactly?

Personally I believe you’ve lost focus and gone off on a personal tangent but maybe I have missed something.

Firstly, I do not deny that memory can in any way be material. As an example, Scholastics recognize a dual nature and St. Thomas postulated that memory may have traces in the organism but also that there must be some kind of idea residue in the soul.

Secondly, in post #70 I wrote on the belief in memory after death:

At* least *in the way that Aquinas takes it, perhaps there is also another sense or senses. One can also see this belief in memory after death in The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus:
Luke 16:25 And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented.

Thirdly, you ask questions in your reply, related to Hades: is there water, physical body, and physical brain there? and I answered that “My only belief regarding Hades is that souls awaited there” and gave the CCC for that. Yet, in the parable of the rich man that I quoted from Luke, Dives is in Gehenna whereas Lazarus in “the Bosom of Abraham”, which in Jewish belief, are of Sheol/Hades but different compartments separated by a chasm.

 

[GEddie]

Linus I am not trying to make you change your mind - your traditional position is well known, consistent and reasonable.

I am simply saying that your position does not intrinsically necessitate that more material based views are illogical.

Neither do all of these more material based views seem to necessarily require denial that Man is made in the image of God and that there is no life after death.

Both views have their strengths and weaknesses and both appear reasonable hypotheses.

The philosophic “clothes of faith” are not the faith - and may therefore change with the Ages accordingly.

Philosophy is not the faith; however, the existence of a spiritual human soul, containing most of the human mind, is a part of the faith.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Vico]

Thanks. What do you want me to comment on, you seem to be agreeing with me .

You wrote: regarding " Death is the separation of body and soul." that “Christians hold it to be true, I believe, more by faith than by a fact of reasoning.”

I posted on the faith, not about a philosophical belief, so I would not call that agreement. My purpose was to emphasize the Christian belief.

 

[inocente]

I am the kind of people who is very fond of explanations. But it seems to me that many of those who pretend they have the explanations, suddenly appear not to have them. Can you respond to my last observations?

You’ll have to point me at the post.

But I’ll say now that those who propose supernatural/immaterial components always end up saying they’re forever inexplicable anyway, as we’ve seen on this thread.

The science of the mind is now easily well-enough developed that the weight of evidence, for all who have eyes to see, obviates any need for immaterial components. That’s my only purpose on this thread. Beyond that I see no point in speculative “explanations” just for the sake of it. It would be more meaningful to debate the implications of research results, but that would depend on acknowledging facts, which seems to be an alien country for some .

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Never heard that view before.
Even Aquinas was careful not to confuse operations (events) with powers (ie faculties that abide even when they are not in operation)

See S.T., part 2, ques 75 - 88. For example in 76, art 1, " On the other hand, the book on the Church Dogmas reads: …we say that one and the same soul in man gives life to the body by its presence and arranges its lfe by is reasoning power. " Or again, " We assert, then, that the soul in man is one in number, at once sensory, intellectual and nutritive. "

Also, “consciousness” is a rather modern concept that nobody has yet defined in such a manner to be agreed by many - let alone to be used to define the “storehouse” we call “memory.”

I use " consciousness " in the sense of being aware of one’s own activities and thought, being aware of what one is doing. It was so used throughout the 20th century, at least, in Scholastic philosophial psychology texts. I never said that " consciousness " was a " storehouse we call memory. " I said that memory is an activity we become aware of when we are conscious, indicating that it is located in the soul and not the brain. For example when I exclaim, " Oh, I remember him! " This is a conscious event in which I recall someone to memory.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I know what immaterial means, what I am asking you to explain is an “immaterial act.”

I would accept that creation ex nihilo is an “immaterial act”.

I would not accept that the circular motion of the celestial spheres is an “immaterial act” (as the ancients and even Aquinas seemed to think). Such efficient causality is to be attributed to the immaterial properties of matter not directly to an alleged immaterial entity (be it some sort of soul or angel that influences matter).

Gravity is afterall spiritual according to your definition is it not?
It certainly fooled the ancients - wise though they were.

Likewise they “explained” the immaterial acts of lodestone rather strangely as final cause (mineral appetite?) rather than a material agent cause (magnetism as a property of matter) acting at a distance on other material objects.

I believe you are also confusing “recall” (a verb, an act) with “memory” (a noun meaning a faculty … or sometimes a particular object of recall).

As prev stated this is prob not something Aquinas could have ever articulated because “consciousness” did not have an equiv word in his day - its a new concept that everybody seems to understand on the surface but whose definition nobody agrees on when it comes to inter-disciplinary discussions.

Why is it that when someone suggests the ancients got some specifics wrong (eg pure substances are infinitely divisible - Aristotle) or, due to particular blindspots of their age (a tendency to invoke the existence of spiritual entities). It is very clear that even the ancients too quickly jumped to “immaterial entities” to explain efficient causality of inexplicable material observations whether that be to do with the heavenly bodies, memory or semen.

In a Philosophy Forum I regard such assertions as irrelevant for “proving” the natural philosophy topic under discussion.

However as a Catholic thinker I do see a two-way “guiding” relationship between philosophy and Church Teaching. The likely conclusions of good philosophy can help critique what exactly Church Teaching may or may not be saying (which lay people often exaggerate or hold dogmatically when such may not be the case). Well understood Church Teaching can guide thinkers to investigate less likely philosophical understandings that eventually may turn out to be supported by nature in the long term.

I have my doubts that allegedly infallible Church Teaching actually is such when the subject matter involves purely natural philosophy principles… such is not a matter of faith or morals…though the faith teachings they allegedly “explain” and allegedly “prove” obviously are.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I know what immaterial means, what I am asking you to explain is an “immaterial act.”

I would accept that creation ex nihilo is an “immaterial act”.

Good. An immaterial act would be any act the soul was engaged in: thinking, willing, remembering, or in any of its acts by which it governs and gives life to the body ( See post # ).

I would not accept that the circular motion of the celestial spheres is an “immaterial act” (as the ancients and even Aquinas seemed to think).

They did not view this motion as immaterial acts as far as I am aware.

Such efficient causality is to be attributed to the immaterial properties of matter not directly to an alleged immaterial entity (be it some sort of soul or angel that influences matter).

If you are still talking about the Celestial Spheres and their motions, Aristotle thought that their motion was caused by their " soul. " Aquinas did not go that far, he thought they were moved by angels, who were immaterial beings or spiritual beings. The motion was that of material bodies, but caused by immaterial agents.

What is the point you are making?

Gravity is afterall spiritual according to your definition is it not?
It certainly fooled the ancients - wise though they were.

If gravity can be detected or measured it is material, not immaterial. I don’t think we can judge the ancients on their view of gravity. Their science wasn’t very advanced, so it would be unfair to judge their views. And I am not aware if they had any views on gravity. They were aware of certain effects which moderns attribute to gravity. .

Likewise they “explained” the immaterial acts of lodestone rather strangely as final cause (mineral appetite?) rather than a material agent cause (magnetism as a property of matter) acting at a distance on other material objects.

Well, were they wrong? And if wrong on this point, does that mean they were wrong on everything? That doesn’t seem to follow. Even our modern scientists have been wrong about many things, yet we don’t accuse them of being wrong about everything.

I believe you are also confusing “recall” (a verb, an act) with “memory” (a noun meaning a faculty … or sometimes a particular object of recall).

I know the difference quite well. I am saying, there is no memory, if I am not conscious of having the memory. If I cannot recall a man’s name, I have no memory of it. Wouldn’t that be correct? So when I do recall his name, then I have a memory of it and I am conscious of having that memory.

As prev stated this is prob not something Aquinas could have ever articulated because “consciousness” did not have an equiv word in his day - its a new concept that everybody seems to understand on the surface but whose definition nobody agrees on when it comes to inter-disciplinary discussions.

Modern Scholastic philosophical psychologists understand it in the sense of being self aware, being aware that I am a unified being which lives, thinks, wills, remembers, etc. I am conscious when I am self aware.

Why is it that when someone suggests the ancients got some specifics wrong (eg pure substances are infinitely divisible - Aristotle) or, due to particular blindspots of their age (a tendency to invoke the existence of spiritual entities). It is very clear that even the ancients too quickly jumped to “immaterial entities” to explain efficient causality of inexplicable material observations whether that be to do with the heavenly bodies, memory or semen.

On the other hand we moderns are " too quick " do dismiss anything even approaching the immaterial or spiritual . So who is worse?

In a Philosophy Forum I regard such assertions as irrelevant for “proving” the natural philosophy topic under discussionHowever as a Catholic thinker I do see a two-way “guiding” relationship between philosophy and Church Teaching. The likely conclusions of good philosophy can help critique what exactly Church Teaching may or may not be saying (which lay people often exaggerate or hold dogmatically when such may not be the case). Well understood Church Teaching can guide thinkers to investigate less likely philosophical understandings that eventually may turn out to be supported by nature in the long term.

The Church’s teaching on man is in the CCC. It says nothing specifically about memory.

I have my doubts that allegedly infallible Church Teaching actually is such when the subject matter involves purely natural philosophy principles… such is not a matter of faith or morals…though the faith teachings they allegedly “explain” and allegedly “prove” obviously are.

I haven’t been aware that I have been " putting words " in the mouth of the Chruch’s teaching about man. If I have, please point that out. On the other hand, I am not aware of anything the Church has ever taught that is contrary to the facts of science or the principles of good philosophy.

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

. . . The science of the mind is now easily well-enough developed that the weight of evidence, for all who have eyes to see, obviates any need for immaterial components. That’s my only purpose on this thread. Beyond that I see no point in speculative “explanations” just for the sake of it. . .

We share a common purpose in straightening out people who’ve got it wrong on the internets.

You have not thought this out. What my eyes see is an oft repeated simplistic understanding of human behaviour that utilizes a flawed dichotomy, attempting but failing to solve its inherent problems.

You are here thinking, feeling and no doubt emoting. While a neurosurgeon could p(name removed by moderator)oint the areas of your brain that are involved in these mental phenomena, he would need your direction as these psychological events do not as such, occupy space. They are immaterial. Cut out a specific part of your brain and words will disappear from consciousness. That does not mean that they do not exist as mental phenomena and that they are only physical events. These mental, immaterial phenomena are what guide the dendritic connections and interneuronal communication within the unity that is the person. The network of the brain is moulded by experience, our understandings.

While you argue against speculation, Isnt that precisely what you are doing?

it is clear that “immaterial components” are required to explain human behaviour and why the brain is structured as it is.

 

[inocente]

We share a common purpose in straightening out people who’ve got it wrong on the internets.

You have not thought this out. What my eyes see is an oft repeated simplistic understanding of human behaviour that utilizes a flawed dichotomy, attempting but failing to solve its inherent problems.

You are here thinking, feeling and no doubt emoting. While a neurosurgeon could p(name removed by moderator)oint the areas of your brain that are involved in these mental phenomena, he would need your direction as these psychological events do not as such, occupy space. They are immaterial. Cut out a specific part of your brain and words will disappear from consciousness. That does not mean that they do not exist as mental phenomena and that they are only physical events. These mental, immaterial phenomena are what guide the dendritic connections and interneuronal communication within the unity that is the person. The network of the brain is moulded by experience, our understandings.

While you argue against speculation, Isnt that precisely what you are doing?

it is clear that “immaterial components” are required to explain human behaviour and why the brain is structured as it is.

I’m saying there’s no need for anything occult or outside the laws of nature. Just as with all other phenomena, the mind emerges from the physical alone, in the same fashion that chemistry emerges from physics, and biology emerges from chemistry. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

People might well be baffled as to how it happens, but being baffled is not a good argument for inventing occult speculations outside the laws of nature, which by virtue of being occult don’t explain anything anyway, and so don’t actually cure bafflement.

 

[ynotzap]

This has not been demonstrated. " Stored " is a conclusion that is not justified.

This has been verified by an empirical experiment, electrodes were touched to a certain part of the brain, and music was heard, even a concert. this is really no surprise when you consider how the brain is the center of the nervous system where electrical signals are transmitted through biological sensors to the brain. We come in contact with the outer world through the senses. We are composed of animality and rationality, and they are united, body and soul. They do not act apart but as a unit.

Linus:

Granted, but this is not memory.

Every concept we have is represented by word, a word is composed of vowels and consonants, sounds that can be sensed. We can abstract the “mental word”, but if we didn’t have the sensed word, the sound which is sensed, we could not do the abstraction. So our knowledge relies first and foremost on the physical. The mind never acts apart from the physical, thats why we say, the soul is extrinsically dependent on matter. The brain stores these physical words, (sounds), and the mind has access to them through sense memory. Try to think, without these physical representations of intellectual concepts. We remember spiritual things by the mental word which relies on the physical word(sound) Extrinsic dependence on matter applies only to this present mode of existence

Linus:

And how do you know this?

Memory is a physical phenomenon traced to the brain, this is a fact, Alzheimer’s attests to that, and they are seeking a physical cure. When the soul is separated from the body at death, because the body can no longer support the activity of the soul because of physical corruption. It enters a new way of existing. the soul through it’s powers is still active because it is the principle of immanent activity in the body. the intellect is now free from its extrinsic dependence on matter, which hinders the soul from knowing truth directly. God (who we prove exists rationally-in Metaphysics) has been identified as the "end of our existence, union with Him, and God is truth, He is His essence, infuses His truth into the mind, or intellect. He placed truth as the natural appetite for the mind, as well as the Good, the natural appetite for the will. Truth and Good are one with God. With the infusion of truth, there is no need for any memory, for in God, all is present. The synthesis of this is confirmed by Faith It would be contradictory of God to frustrate the soul if the soul did not know the truth for which it was created. The confirmation of this truth is found in Faith,

We see now as through a veil, but then we shall see face to face- St.Paul; Again, we will be known, as we are known In His presence, we will see ourselves in His light

By reflection in our present state of existence, we can always go back to the physical word (memory of sound) and obtain the “mental word” by abstraction, as long as we are not impeded by physical corruption (illness etc)

Linus2nd

 

[Richca]

I don’t think anything is " stored " in the brain. I view the brain as the interface between the external world and the inner world of the soul.

Probably a little of both. I haven’t stopped to analyse. I have done no " empirical " research other than what is found on the net.

I have seen nothing yet which would make me change my mind.

The available information speaks of nurons, synapses and other things, which they suggest lay down chemical, material tracks which are retained in " appropriate " sense centers. These " tracks " do not, in my estimatiion, constitute memories, they are simply " tracks. " Memory, in my opinion, is a conscious event, I must consciously refer to some event or idea, I must be aware of it. Consciousness or self awarness is an intellectual act, as far as I am concerned, even though all that I am aware of passes through the brain. That means that it is an act of the soul.

If, on the other hand, I were unconscious, there would be nothing to remember, " tracks " might or might not be left in the sensory centers of the brain. But, whether or not they were, I would never be aware of them. So they could not possibly constitute memory, and they will never become a part of any conscious memory I might have in the furture. Therefore I say that memory is nothing but intellectual recall of something the mind has stored in its own spiritual substance, while in a state of consciousness. .

Linus2nd…

I agree with you that there is an intellectual, spiritual, immaterial memory. This is the teaching of Aquinas and he follows Aristotle here as well as St Augustine. This is quite reasonable. It is self-evident that we can retain intellectual knowledge, the intelligible species of things, without having to re-learn or rediscover it. Once a person learns a science, for example, he/she does not have to relearn it to recall it. The knowledge is already possessed and it is called having the habit of knowledge. Similarily, once a person knows the nature or essence of a dog (the universal idea), for example, they can recall this knowledge without actually having to open their eyes and physically look at a dog. However, in this life, the intellect does not do this without turning to the phantasm which involves the sensible memory. As human beings are a soul or spirit and body composite, our natural way of knowing is through the senses and the phantasms. The intellectual memory is by its nature the treasury or storehouse of intelligible species and universal ideas. Similarly, an angel whose intellect is full of intelligible species can consider either this or that intelligible species which are already in his intellect. So, Aquinas says that memory can be allowed in the angels but not sensible memory. As far as whether the intellectual memory is a distinct power from the intellect, Aquinas says no for there are only two difference of powers in the intellect, namely, the active and the passive. If I’m understanding him correctly, the intelligible species are retained in the passive intellect.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This has been verified by an empirical experiment, electrodes were touched to a certain part of the brain, and music was heard, even a concert. this is really no surprise when you consider how the brain is the center of the nervous system where electrical signals are transmitted through biological sensors to the brain. We come in contact with the outer world through the senses. We are composed of animality and rationality, and they are united, body and soul. They do not act apart but as a unit.

Do you have a reference for the experiment you mention here? I would like to see a peer reviewed discussion of this.

Every concept we have is represented by word, a word is composed of vowels and consonants, sounds that can be sensed. We can abstract the “mental word”, but if we didn’t have the sensed word, the sound which is sensed, we could not do the abstraction. So our knowledge relies first and foremost on the physical. The mind never acts apart from the physical, thats why we say, the soul is extrinsically dependent on matter. The brain stores these physical words, (sounds), and the mind has access to them through sense memory. Try to think, without these physical representations of intellectual concepts. We remember spiritual things by the mental word which relies on the physical word(sound) Extrinsic dependence on matter applies only to this present mode of existence

I agree that the mind and the brain work together. I do not agree that the brain stores information. What makes me uncomfortable is that modern psychology is determined to make us believe it is so. But they do not even consider the possibility that the soul may also store this information. That is a red flag for me.

Memory is a physical phenomenon traced to the brain, this is a fact,

It is not a fact for me .

Alzheimer’s attests to that, and they are seeking a physical cure. When the soul is separated from the body at death, because the body can no longer support the activity of the soul because of physical corruption. It enters a new way of existing. the soul through it’s powers is still active because it is the principle of immanent activity in the body. the intellect is now free from its extrinsic dependence on matter, which hinders the soul from knowing truth directly. God (who we prove exists rationally-in Metaphysics) has been identified as the "end of our existence, union with Him, and God is truth, He is His essence, infuses His truth into the mind, or intellect. He placed truth as the natural appetite for the mind, as well as the Good, the natural appetite for the will. Truth and Good are one with God. With the infusion of truth, there is no need for any memory, for in God, all is present. The synthesis of this is confirmed by Faith It would be contradictory of God to frustrate the soul if the soul did not know the truth for which it was created. The confirmation of this truth is found in Faith,

Faith has nothing to do with the discussion of memory.

By reflection in our present state of existence, we can always go back to the physical word (memory of sound) and obtain the “mental word” by abstraction, as long as we are not impeded by physical corruption (illness etc)

All this proves is that a healthy mind leads to a clear mind. It does not prove that memory resides in the brain.

Then too there is the philosophical fact asserted by Agustine and Aquinas that the soul is wholely present in each part of the body. So even if you want to say that memory resides in the brain, it resides in the soul at the same time. You just can’t get away from the soul’s action in all the body, including the brain.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree with you that there is an intellectual, spiritual, immaterial memory. This is the teaching of Aquinas and he follows Aristotle here as well as St Augustine. This is quite reasonable. It is self-evident that we can retain intellectual knowledge, the intelligible species of things, without having to re-learn or rediscover it. Once a person learns a science, for example, he/she does not have to relearn it to recall it. The knowledge is already possessed and it is called having the habit of knowledge. Similarily, once a person knows the nature or essence of a dog (the universal idea), for example, they can recall this knowledge without actually having to open their eyes and physically look at a dog. However, in this life, the intellect does not do this without turning to the phantasm which involves the sensible memory. As human beings are a soul or spirit and body composite, our natural way of knowing is through the senses and the phantasms. The intellectual memory is by its nature the treasury or storehouse of intelligible species and universal ideas. Similarly, an angel whose intellect is full of intelligible species can consider either this or that intelligible species which are already in his intellect. So, Aquinas says that memory can be allowed in the angels but not sensible memory. As far as whether the intellectual memory is a distinct power from the intellect, Aquinas says no for there are only two difference of powers in the intellect, namely, the active and the passive. If I’m understanding him correctly, the intelligible species are retained in the passive intellect.

But the question of the moment is whether or not the brain is the store house of memory. I say no.

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

Dear Linus, I knew you would ask me for the source of the empirical data that demonstrates that sense impressions are stored in the brain. You have me at a disadvantage, because it happened some time ago. I am relying on my memory of the event I believe was in a paper. Even if I can not present the data, I will look for it. How do we learn the times tables as children? Constant repetition so our memories are deeply impressed, and how are they deeply impressed, by sound, and recall. Does the soul have to be deeply impressed by sound, the soul possess no senses. But can the soul understand, if no sense impression was presented to it. The mind would remain blank. And if we did not have access to many sense impressions, how would we differentiate one word from another if we did not physically store them in a physical memory bank? Intellectual memory depends on sense memory, and sense memory depends on recall of what is experienced by the senses, and that is in the physical brain.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Just as with all other phenomena, the mind emerges from the physical alone, in the same fashion that chemistry emerges from physics, and biology emerges from chemistry. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. People might well be baffled as to how it happens, but being baffled is not a good argument . . .

Mind does speak to a higher organization than cellular communication networks, whose activity correlates with those mental events.
Mental events likewise correlate with neurophysiological activity.
That said the mind does not exert energy on the brain causing change.
It is the person, as a psychosomatic being, a whole, who thinks, acts and perceives; and, when he does, physical and mental changes ensue - that is who we are.

As to the parts, the way I see it the whole is a brand new entity in itself, and thereby greater than the parts to which it decomposes.

I don’t get baffled much 'cause I try not to out-think myself.
But, I will tell you that just observing what is, is super amazing. When that WOW! hits, you feel close to God.

 

[ynotzap]

But the question of the moment is whether or not the brain is the store house of memory. I say no.

Linus2nd

MIT researchers have shown for the first time ever, that memories are stored in specific brain cells, By triggering a small cluster of neurons, the researchers were able to force the subject to recall specific memory. By removing the neurons the subject would loose memory. They say that the same thing would happen to humans, as this experiment was performed on mice, with laser. Still looking.