What exactly is the soul?

[Richca]

Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd View Post
But the question of the moment is whether or not the brain is the store house of memory. I say no.

Linus2nd

I think I partly addressed this in the post I made. There is an intellectual memory and a sensible memory. The intelligible species stored in the intellectual memory are in the intellect and the intellect is not the brain so the brain is definitely not the store house of intellectual knowledge nor is the brain even capable of intellectual knowledge. The brain is probably a corporeal organ of the interior sensitive powers of the soul such as the common sense, imagination, estimative, and memorative powers. These four interior sensitive powers Aquinas enumerates in the Summa Theologica. The sensory powers of the soul are all about particulars as opposed to the intellect which abstracts the universal from the particular. The sensory powers of the soul operate or function through a bodily organ and as I said the brain is probably a good candidate for some if not all of the four interior sensitive powers.

As to the question then of sensible memory and whether, for example, the sensible images or forms received through the senses and which are preserved in the imagination are preserved in the power or the organ of the power is a good question. Maybe they are preserved in both the power and the organ working in unison. We would not be able to recall a sensible image in the imagination without the power or the organ of the power. We need both the power and the organ to recall the image. So, whether the stored image is in the power alone or the organ alone or possibly in both the power and the organ, I have not thought about it much. I think what we can say with certainty according to Aristotlelian/Thomistic philosophy, the recall of an image or form in the imagination, for example, is a composite operation of the power and the organ and if we extend this, of the animal which is a composite of soul and body.

(continued)

What you are referring here too is sensible memory since you mention the brain and you may very well be right. As I said, I have not thought about it much except for what I said above.

 

[GEddie]

Sorry, I don’t know any longer what it is you are trying to discuss, agree with or object to here.

This is a philosophy forum and “soul” is a philosophic term understood by the Church in the tradition of Aristotle and Aquinas.
It is here being asserted that it is not clear at all that their alleged qualities of the human soul can be tightly proven from the evidence of nature. Alternative hypotheses also seem arguable, though likewise these arguments are not tight either, yet far more cogent now than in their time.

Faith seems unable to infallibly certify the natural philosophy truths of Aristotle or Aquinas any more or less than it can the heliocentrism of Copernicus. It of course may or may not do so on a well-founded prudential basis.

All I was objecting to was the implication that because certain Aristotelian/Aquinian axioms are not rigorously proven, that therefore the materiality of the mind is consistent with “faith.”

At least from the Catholic perspective, that isn’t so. Faith does not depend on philosophical rigor. And historically, the spiritual human soul/mind/nous has been an article of faith.

ICXC NIKA

 

[inocente]

Yes, I agree with you that it would be better to debate the implications of research results. I like to study cognitive psychology and neuroscience, precisely to know as many facts as possible in my limited time. I have read books of authors like Ramachandran, Antonio Damasio, Gary Lynch, Joseph LeDoux, Daniel Schacter, Mark Solms, John Harrison, Ronald Laing, Karen Kaplan, Michael Gazzaniga, Paul Cazayus, D. W. Hamlyn, Barbara Rolls, Michael Eysenck, Alain Lieury, Robert Tocquet, Alexander Luria, Rainer Guski, Richard Mayer… I am aware that I know just a tiny part of what is available now, and even though the authors of the books that I have read are researchers themselves, I know that I am missing fundamental discussions about their discoveries. Nevertheless, I really would like to discuss with you the implications that the results of scientific research might have concerning our common conceptions of mind, soul and others.

You have said that “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”. One of your basis to say this must be the research of Dr. Sheila Nirenberg; but can you see how your conclusion is speculative? If the brain basically creates “the movie of the world which we see”, what is the brain?

1. We all know, both subjectively and objectively, that we detect light through the eyes, and only through the eyes.
2. A number of research teams have found that the only information produced by the eyes are the coded electrical signals. This has been found in other species too. (Nirenberg is the first to be able to decode the signals in human beings, by no means the first to detect them).
3. Therefore, from 1 and 2, we know the only information available from which to make “the movie” in our mind is this stream of electrical signals coming out of the eyes. I can’t see how that conclusion is in any way speculative, doesn’t it just follow by simple logic?

 

[yppop]

Originally Posted by JuanFlorencio View Post
Yes, I agree with you that it would be better to debate the implications of research results. I like to study cognitive psychology and neuroscience, precisely to know as many facts as possible in my limited time. I have read books of authors like Ramachandran, Antonio Damasio, Gary Lynch, Joseph LeDoux, Daniel Schacter, Mark Solms, John Harrison, Ronald Laing, Karen Kaplan, Michael Gazzaniga, Paul Cazayus, D. W. Hamlyn, Barbara Rolls, Michael Eysenck, Alain Lieury, Robert Tocquet, Alexander Luria, Rainer Guski, Richard Mayer… I am aware that I know just a tiny part of what is available now, and even though the authors of the books that I have read are researchers themselves, I know that I am missing fundamental discussions about their discoveries. Nevertheless, I really would like to discuss with you the implications that the results of scientific research might have concerning our common conceptions of mind, soul and others.

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

I find neurobiology a fascinating subject. I have just completed my fifth Coursera Course given by top-notch professors from leading universities and what I have learned in my yearlong study is that the scientists have done a magnificent job in generating the in depth and detailed knowledge of the human brain. Not a single one mentioned “consciousness”.

Your bios (Catholic, Baptist) imply a belief in God. Which raises a question in my mind (not my brain): why don’t you believe the spiritual substance that is associated with the soul does take part in the activity of the mind, that the immaterial phenomena such as thought, qualia, feelings, emotions etc. are produced by the spiritual memory and are not just an “emergent” property of the neurons in the brain?

However I do understand how persons that are enamored with science can fall into the trap of believing that science is the only approach to the search for the truth of reality. Let me demonstrate with an excerpt from a lecture by a very brilliant professor that knows the entire central nervous system (CNS) in minute detail and can describe the function of each and every element.

Now, recall that the somatotopy in the motor cortex is a gross reflection of the somatotopy that we find in the somatic sensory cortex, across the central sulcus and the post central gyrus. But the detail is quite different. Rather than there being a faithful representation in a point-by-point fashion of the contralateral body surface, what we see in the motor cortex is a map of movement intention. And that intention is roughly somatotopically organized in the following way. With movements that we intend to make involving our lower extremity being represented here in the paracentral lobule on the medial face of the hemisphere, and just out a bit into the dorsal medial margin of the hemisphere. Well, as we progress in a lateral and inferior direction, we move from the lower extremity up through the trunk and into a large expansive region near the center of the motor cortex that is concerned with the movements that we intend to make with our arms and our hands.

(The one thing I learned from these courses is that I have gone from an A to a C student. I still comprehend but don’t retain very well.)

The reaction to such a presentation is usually, "Wow! this guy really knows his stuff!’. It is natural to be easily impressed by such deep knowledge and tend to rely on such people for our general knowledge even that which goes beyond the area of their expertise. However, if one reads philosophically, i.e., with discernment, he/she might just ask the most important question that this excerpt raises, namely, what is the “map of movement intention” and what and where is it? Does a neuronal object decide when to move the arm? Then we might also ask, "what is the WE in the phrase “we intend”? Is WE a neuronal circuit? I think you know the answer and the WE or the I isn’t one or any number of neutrons.

There is a great tendency for neurobiologists to bury the real questions in a stream of magnificent knowledge using inexplicable words or phrases.

By the way Juan, doesn’t LeDoux’s “synaptic gap theory of memory” explain the nature of the “efferent event” I described in my Post 51 in this thread?

Peace,
Yppop

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Can you provide a link?

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am talking about the faculty of memory that stores memories even when we are not currently aware of them. I see no good argument to prove this capability cannot arise from the “material soul” as in animals.

When Aristotle and Aquinas spoke of the material soul of animals, they meant a spiritual soul that was totally dependent on matter, whose activities never achieved thought and reason and would cease to exist at death. This kind of soul does not exist in man. Though man’s soul takes over the same activities of the vegetative and sentient souls in plants and animals, as well as its own intellectual activities…

Sure we can search this faculty at will (or its content may arise by unconsciously controlled associations from consciousness). That is not the topic,

What is not the topic? Your referent is not clear.

Linus2nd

 

[yppop]

Linus2nd…

Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd View Post
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 agree with both of these posts in that they both contend that humans possess an “intellectual, spiritual, immaterial memory” that is linked (hylomorphically?) to the brain. My agreement depends on terminology. For example, I believe that humans possess a dual memory, a material memory inherent in the neurons of the central nervous system, CNS, mostly in the frontal cortex; and a perceptual memory inherent in the spiritual substance I refer to as “nous”, the Greek word for mind or intellect.
The material memory can roughly be described as a set of “tracks” as you (Linus) referred to the neuronal circuitry in the CNS. In fact, tracks is not much different and roughly means the same as the term “tracts” that the neurobiologists use to describe the paths of nerves through the CNS such as the “corticobulbar tract” that conducts impulses from the cortex to the cranial nerves. I prefer “material memory” because we do learn various activities that are " remembered" and stored for future use in the neurons. Activities such as riding a bike, hitting a golf ball, and even the things we take for granted such as walking are referred to as “motor memory”. Although, riding a bike, hitting a golf ball, and walking depends on a number of neuronal circuits linked sequentially, where the bike, the golf ball and your feet go depends on the information stored in the spiritual part of the mind.
Peace
Yppop

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I merely observe this is not convincingly provable by reason.
Which means alternative explanations of memory that give more credit to “brain” are not out of order.

It would seem that they are open to discussion. So far, there has been no proof - in my opinion.

Whether the Church can (or has) pronounced infallibly (as opposed to prudentially) on this teaching of natural philosophy is another interesting matter. The operation of nature is not usually regarded as a matter of faith or morals.

You are certainly aware that certain philosophical and certain scientific " truths " are opposed to Faith and cannot be held.

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

When Aristotle and Aquinas spoke of the material soul of animals, they meant a spiritual soul that was totally dependent on matter, whose activities never achieved thought and reason and would cease to exist at death. This kind of soul does not exist in man. Though man’s soul takes over the same activities of the vegetative and sentient souls in plants and animals, as well as its own intellectual activities. . .

This is not inconsistent with what is known today.

The problem has arisen because of blinkers placed on science, resulting in a focus that is solely and merely on the physical.

In the end chemicals are chemicals; those that constitute the bodies of animals are not different from those that make up our own bodies.
There is no disagreement that we are made of the dust. But with us, it is matter animated by God’s spirit.

While the realm of the spirit does lie outside the scope of modern science, it should at least be acknowledged.
Its failure to do so, seriously impairs the ability of science to tell us about ourselves.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I believe that humans possess a dual memory, a material memory inherent in the neurons of the central nervous system, CNS, mostly in the frontal cortex; and a perceptual memory inherent in the spiritual substance . . .

I can understand expanding the definition of memory to include changes in CNS structure and function, but please be aware that such activity is found everywhere in the body, and not “mostly in the frontal cortex”. For example, it is becoming clear that in cases of complete anesthesia, the patient can develop chronic pain at a spinal and subcortical level because pain fibres fired unremittingly during the operation, causing changes in the neurons with which they communicate. Changes ensue that take considerable time to readjust. This in spite of the fact that nothing was felt during surgery.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well that is a complete non-sequitor aimed at the choir perhaps rather than my point .

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

And I gave you an answer.

Oh boy, this is heavy going…Linus this means you fail to understand Aristotle at a very basic level of his Nat Phil. This is precisely why he believed the Celestial Spheres had some sort of “soul”.

Whether that soul was united to the heavenly bodies or was an external mover is unimportant. The motion itself was not an example of an immaterial act. It was simply eternal. So your objection does not appear valid.

Immaterial acts, according to both Aristotle and Aquinas,require an abiding immaterial substance!

And I never said otherwise.

Even the “more modern” Aquinas found it hard to escape this conclusion because he is of the same basic frame of mind on such a basic “scientific” assumption of the Ancients.
You opine Aquinas taught it was angels. This is not correct.

On the contrary, he did not think it mattered either way. But his more mature conviction was that it was angels.

Aquinas is very confused on this point. He is “scientific” enough to know that Aristotle’s conclusion doesn’t sit well but he really has no tight philosophic basis for denying Aristotle’s conclusion. He offers a few throwaway comments about perhaps angels…but never really solves the difficulty.

Whether or not he solved the question is certainly debateable. But he did think that the entire universe was ordered from higher to lower, that the more perfect intellectual beings governed the lower ( From God to the highest angelic order to the lower, to man ) and that the material was ruled by the immaterial or intellectual. Thus, angels moved the heavenly bodies among other things. S.T., part 1, ques 106- 113, esp. 110.

He cannot, because it would weaken his philosophy of Man and Intellect which relies on the exact same principle.

I don’t see a connection between man’s intellectual soul and Aquinas’ interpretation on how the heavenly bodies are moved ( and the rest of creation as well ) by either souls or angels.

Neither is it clear that Aquinas regarded Celestial spheres as “material bodies”.

I don’t know why we are spending so much time on this. At the moment I can’t recall what he thought.

He in fact comes up with an ingenius theory which blurs the line between material and immaterial that is, in my view, ultimately contradictory and which stretches Aristotle’s hylomorphism to breaking point. He posits the existence of a material substance whose form is so perfect in its simplicity it has no unexhausted potentiality and so is eternal and cannot be corrupted (in other words a mineral with a soul and much like an angel in effect!). What ingenious nonsense!

I’ll take your word for it. You have to remember, both he and the ancients were speculating. Thomas repeated the thought many times that there may be a better explanation in the future.

What bunkem! You contradict both Aristotle and modern science.

uch:

In the Aristotelian and Thomistic sense, the immaterial is spiritual and cannot be sensed or known directly, and certainly not by any measuring device made by human art. I’m sorry if that offends modern science. So if gravity is a real material substance, it must be subject to detection by human ingenuity. Thus, if it can be detected it is a material form, if it cannot be detected, it is immaterial. Of course, and science would shudder at this, it may indeed be the powers of angels ( or God himself ) moving the material world.

Soul, for Aristotle and even Aquinas, is posited precisely to mediate between the material and immaterial worlds. It explains the inexplicable causality observed in matter. Which is why Aristotle (and Aquinas to his own consternation) posited mineral souls in the Celestial Spheres which seemed to cause their own motion.

I agree, but I have not reviewed the Celestial Spheres. I accept your data there, but I would update by saying that Aquinas’ mature thought in the S.T. indicates that angels moved the material world.

cont. on next post
L.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Post 149 continued.

Soul, for Aristotle and even Aquinas, is posited precisely to mediate between the material and immaterial worlds. It explains the inexplicable causality observed in matter. Which is why Aristotle (and Aquinas to his own consternation) posited mineral souls in the Celestial Spheres which seemed to cause their own motion.

I agree, but I have not reviewed the Celestial Spheres. I accept your data there, but I would update by saying that Aquinas’ mature thought in the S.T. indicates that angels moved the material world.

You contradict modern science by confusing force with energy.Energy could be fairly said to be interconvertible with matter - but not the fundamental forces. Even science has not yet “explained” action-at-a-distance. Sure, we can predict its behaviour and interactions with matter…but what it “is” nobody has a clue. Its just a given, but it certainly cannot be said to be “matter”.

Fair enough.

Its operation is definitely immaterial and therefore, to Aristotle and even Aquinas, just as much belonging to the “spiritual” as the Celestial bodies and souls animal or human.

You are mixing together gravity, Celestial bodies, and souls. That is apples, oranges, and pears. Animal souls and human souls, and angels are spiritual entities.

This was the “science” of the Ancients and it was flawed and Aquinas did not completely escape it.

Correct, but he had some great work-arounds

Why not? It belongs to exactly the same realm of nat phil as does their science of souls.
This is the very point I am making. They mistakenly conflated both disciplines together, treating them in the same “philosophic boat”.

Aquinas was very clear in his definition of the human soul and of separate substances ( angels). I don’t think your judgment would be so harsh if you took the time to read the S.T.

Yet I see in Aquinas (and you his ever loyal scribe) the same ancient entanglement still.

Sorry for that, but I think you are wrong.

That is why you do not really have a feel for modern science Linus.

No, I am not a scientist.

You understand modern science enough to see the inadequacies of the Ancients in Physics…but do not see that such a criticism must necessarily be applied to higher areas of their Nat Phil (eg phil of Man) - for to them they were joined much as one discipline unlike today.

I think your judgment is incorrect. I see the inadequacies of the Ancients but that has nothing to do with my thinking on the nature of man or of his intellectual psychology.

Even in Aquinas they are entangled a little still.

Not in my opinion.

Which is basically what our discussion re brain versus mind is really all about

I thought the only disagreement was on where to put memory?

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

CONTINUED…

No, they weren’t wrong about everything. I have been at pains to say the opposite.
Yet you speak to me (or is it the choir again) as if I said they are wrong in all .
But they were consistently confused a little on the line between the material and the immaterial in what we now differentiate as Physics and Phil of Man - linked by a common metaphysical set of principles. If they were flawed in the lower they will be flawed in the higher because the metaphysical principles used in both are the same.

I don’t see how that judgment is justified, after all science didn’t really get going until the 17th century, it grew out of what Aristotle called science, which indeed was a mixture of the philosophy of nature and metaphysics. But metaphysics was supreme and its principles ( in the A/T sense ) still apply today, even to science.

No this is incorrect. The very reason Aquinas and Aristotle posit abiding “faculties” is to explain how “operations” are discontinuous. If we were constantly aware of all our memories (an ongoing operation) we would not need to posit the existence of a “faculty” of memory. But as you say we do not. Therefore we must posit the existence of a faculty that holds all our memories when we are not aware of them or asleep. Now and then we “look them up” as in a filing cabinet. Or sometimes they just jump into awareness.

I am just saying that there is no reason why the soul cannot be the depository. Why must it be the brain?

Where we differ is in hypotheses as to the nature of this faculty. The ancients held it was spiritual (hence a direct faculty of the human soul). Many today are suggesting that the brain is certainly complex enough to be able to assume this function - which suggests it is more material in operation than the ancients could understand. Hence it would be like the animals, more a faculty of the lower “material soul” (which the human soul obviously possesses in some fashion).

The animal soul was a spiritual, non-material substance, called material because it had no immaterial powers, it was tied to the body absolutely.

Is that your way of agreeing .

I’m just saying that we can’t say definitely one way or the other. But I come down on the side of the soul.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus have you been hiding under a rock these last 50 yrs .

uch:uch: You are so kind.

Few in the scientific community (let alone the street) denies that the brain stores memories anymore! I am willing to be surprised though as I have never “peer reviewed” the issue.

Many in the scientific community also believe in man caused global warming, they even fudge the data to strengthen their arguments. Many in the scientific community believe a lot of things are O.K. which are morally reprehensible, many believe the universe is simply a " bald fact. "

But like geo-centrism, if people cannot let go of cherished assumptions there will always be “logical” reasons to keep those beliefs I suppose.

Well, at least we could certainly stand a big dose of metaphysical thinking in the scientific community.

It comes back to my questions to you re whether or not you disbelieve on aposteriori or apriori grounds.

Either way, I have seen no proof that the brain is the store house of memory.i

I know from experience you really disagree on apriori grounds (as you always do because you trust the Ancients more than Empiricism).

Only where metaphysical truths and fruths of faith and morals are concerned. I have no beef with science itself, except it has diviroced itself from metaphysica, and intentionally so.

A non-falsifiable philosophy is very consoling, but also very lonely .

Well, we keep plugging away.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus2nd…

I agree with both of these posts in that they both contend that humans possess an “intellectual, spiritual, immaterial memory” that is linked (hylomorphically?) to the brain. My agreement depends on terminology. For example, I believe that humans possess a dual memory, a material memory inherent in the neurons of the central nervous system, CNS, mostly in the frontal cortex; and a perceptual memory inherent in the spiritual substance I refer to as “nous”, the Greek word for mind or intellect.
The material memory can roughly be described as a set of “tracks” as you (Linus) referred to the neuronal circuitry in the CNS. In fact, tracks is not much different and roughly means the same as the term “tracts” that the neurobiologists use to describe the paths of nerves through the CNS such as the “corticobulbar tract” that conducts impulses from the cortex to the cranial nerves. I prefer “material memory” because we do learn various activities that are " remembered" and stored for future use in the neurons. Activities such as riding a bike, hitting a golf ball, and even the things we take for granted such as walking are referred to as “motor memory”. Although, riding a bike, hitting a golf ball, and walking depends on a number of neuronal circuits linked sequentially, where the bike, the golf ball and your feet go depends on the information stored in the spiritual part of the mind.
Peace
Yppop

That’s what they are trying their best to sell at any rate. Doesn’t convince me.

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

Can you provide a link?

Linus2nd

I went to the internet and asked: MIT experiments on memories in neurons? and it popped up. Also www extremetech.com, which covers from electronics, to science forums. Good luck.

 

[ynotzap]

Linus: If you do some research on Plato and his philosophical methods, and why St.Thomas found some serious faults with it, it will reveal to you that Plato didn’t give much importance
to the sensitive nature of man, it was St. Thomas who showed that man must be regarded as a whole, body and soul. His animality is just as important as his rationality. Plato regarded mans rationality, as the thing that defined man. In those days the soul was treated as a prisoner of the body, not as an integral unit of body and soul, one is not complete without the other. This was God’s design. Man later was regarded as “Incarnate soul” This was not to say the Plato was wrong in what he said as to the rational part of man, he had trouble dealing with matter and man as a whole, his being. Plato had trouble with the concept of existence, being, and becoming. Of course in todays society people have to be reminded that they are more the animals Sensuality is rampant

 

[Aloysium]

I went to the internet and asked: MIT experiments on memories in neurons? and it popped up. Also www extremetech.com, which covers from electronics, to science forums. Good luck.

None of that proves that memory is found in the brain. It does show that stimulating the brain may evoke certain memories, as do fragrances, pictures, ideas etc.
A person is being given the electrical stimulation and a person reacts.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

1. We all know, both subjectively and objectively, that we detect light through the eyes, and only through the eyes.
2. A number of research teams have found that the only information produced by the eyes are the coded electrical signals. This has been found in other species too. (Nirenberg is the first to be able to decode the signals in human beings, by no means the first to detect them).
3. Therefore, from 1 and 2, we know the only information available from which to make “the movie” in our mind is this stream of electrical signals coming out of the eyes. I can’t see how that conclusion is in any way speculative, doesn’t it just follow by simple logic?

You just need to go on with your reasoning:

The brains we can see (and under certain conditions, we might be able to see our very own brain) are part of the world.

Therefore, from 1 and 2, the “movie” of the brain is created by the brain based on the electrical impulses coming out from the eyes.

But the eyes are part of the world too; therefore the “movie” of them is created by the brain based on the electrical signals coming out from those same eyes.

Actually, as the instrumentation used in the laboratory to “see” the electrical signals coming out from the eyes are part of the world. Therefore, their “movie” is also created by the brain.

But whatever the electrical signals might be -after these previous considerations- they themselves are part of the world; so… What is the brain?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus: If you do some research on Plato and his philosophical methods, and why St.Thomas found some serious faults with it, it will reveal to you that Plato didn’t give much importance
to the sensitive nature of man, it was St. Thomas who showed that man must be regarded as a whole, body and soul. His animality is just as important as his rationality. Plato regarded mans rationality, as the thing that defined man. In those days the soul was treated as a prisoner of the body, not as an integral unit of body and soul, one is not complete without the other. This was God’s design. Man later was regarded as “Incarnate soul” This was not to say the Plato was wrong in what he said as to the rational part of man, he had trouble dealing with matter and man as a whole, his being. Plato had trouble with the concept of existence, being, and becoming. Of course in todays society people have to be reminded that they are more the animals Sensuality is rampant

From my post # 148, " See S.T., part 2, ques 75 - 88. For example in 76, art 3, " 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 " So you see, I follow Thomas - and the Church.

Linus2nd