What exactly is the soul?

[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.

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

Correction: " 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 " I mistakenly typed " art 1. "

So whether or not memory resides in the brain, it is clear that it is the soul which governs everything about the living man, including his sensory, intellective, and nutritive operations.

De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus

(PL 58 0984C) CAPUT XV.

Neque duas animas esse dicimus in uno homine, sicut Iacobus et alii Syrorum disputatores scribunt, unam animalem qua animetur corpus, et immixta sit sanguini, et alteram spiritalem quae rationem ministret; sed dicimus unam esse eamdemque animam in homine, quae et corpus sua societate vivificet, et semetipsam sua ratione disponat, habens in se libertatem arbitrii, ut in suae substantiae eligat cogitatione quod vult.

Linus2nd

 

[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

correction on last statement "…reminded that they are more than- not (the) animals

 

[ynotzap]

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

I agree completely with your references. the problem lies in understanding that the union of body and soul is so integrated that every thought has a physical partner, and they are not separated. Even when we are dealing with abstract thought, the sensitive part of our nature is involved as well, at the same time, because of the hylomorphic union, spirit and matter. So knowing this one can understand how sense memory is united to the abstractive action of the intellect, a power of the soul and how sense memory can be stored and used in spiritual abstraction Quote: the soul is at ONCE SENSORY. intellectual and nutritive

 

[GEddie]

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?

It’s not that hard a question.

The brain is the nexus in our human head that converts physical perception into mind, and transfers intentions in the mind into body movement.

BTW, I doubt very much we’d ever see our own brain; even though brain surgery has been done with the body conscious, I doubt the mirrors would ever be set up to allow such. (But the feedback issues would be quite interesting.)

ICXC NIKA

 

[JuanFlorencio]

It’s not that hard a question.

The brain is the nexus in our human head that converts physical perception into mind, and transfers intentions in the mind into body movement.

BTW, I doubt very much we’d ever see our own brain; even though brain surgery has been done with the body conscious, I doubt the mirrors would ever be set up to allow such. (But the feedback issues would be quite interesting.)

ICXC NIKA

Yes, the mirrors! It is possible with a set of mirrors!

It was not my intention to propose a hard question, but to show where Inocente’s idea leads. However, you came from a different path and interpreted the question peculiarly (which is fantastic!).

Following Inocente’s motion it would seem at first that there are my eyes, my brain, and bit streams; and everything else is a “movie” of the world created by my brain. But then, on a second stage of reflection, the brain itself is assimilated into the bit stream; the brain as we see it must be created by the brain. But is it at least a bit stream? No! Because a bit stream is something to which we have access through instruments whose appearance is created by the brain. So, we don’t know what the brain is?

Taken by Inocente’s impulse, the brain could not be the nexus that you imagine; there would not be human heads nor body movements at all. What could reality be? We wouldn’t know.

 

[Aloysium]

It’s not that hard a question.

The brain is the nexus in our human head that converts physical perception into mind, and transfers intentions in the mind into body movement.

It does this and far far more. It regulates circadian rhythm, hormone levels such as in the menstrual cycle, sleep levels including dreams, mood and anxiety, pain, muscle tone, attention span, and pretty much everything that keeps one alive such as breathing and heart rate.

The brain may be the central control, but the body is pretty much a unit where everything supports and provides some sort of feedback to everything else.

We share pretty much all of this with animals. What our soul (from its position in eternity and as other, in relation to the Ground of its being and to our fellow human souls) does different is utilize the brain, which is far more developed than in animals, to reason, appreciate beauty and to truly love. We do not react purely instinctively; we can observe from outside time and can give even our lives to the good which we can know.

Our bodies and spirit are one. Because of our original choice to abandon the Good, we will all perish. But, we live in the hope that our individual and unique spirit will live with God until our promised resurrection at the end of time, after we have all come into being and fulfilled His will.

That’s my take on all this.

 

[GEddie]

It does this and far far more. It regulates circadian rhythm, hormone levels such as in the menstrual cycle, sleep levels including dreams, mood and anxiety, pain, muscle tone, attention span, and pretty much everything that keeps one alive such as breathing and heart rate.

The brain may be the central control, but the body is pretty much a unit where everything supports and provides some sort of feedback to everything else.

We share pretty much all of this with animals. What our soul (from its position in eternity and as other, in relation to the Ground of its being and to our fellow human souls) does different is utilize the brain, which is far more developed than in animals, to reason, appreciate beauty and to truly love. We do not react purely instinctively; we can observe from outside time and can give even our lives to the good which we can know.

Our bodies and spirit are one. Because of our original choice to abandon the Good, we will all perish. But, we live in the hope that our individual and unique spirit will live with God until our promised resurrection at the end of time, after we have all come into being and fulfilled His will.

That’s my take on all this.

Of course I am aware of all of this.

But insofar as such vital operations as breathing, muscle tone and body-temperature control are a) shared with the brains and bodies of animal life; and b) for that reason, do not depend upon the action of mind or nous; they can be factored out of a consideration of the mind.

Really, our vaunted human mind is piggybacked onto the large head of a glorified animal. In life everlasting, we will see the glorified human being.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree completely with your references. the problem lies in understanding that the union of body and soul is so integrated that every thought has a physical partner, and they are not separated. Even when we are dealing with abstract thought, the sensitive part of our nature is involved as well, at the same time, because of the hylomorphic union, spirit and matter. So knowing this one can understand how sense memory is united to the abstractive action of the intellect, a power of the soul and how sense memory can be stored and used in spiritual abstraction Quote: the soul is at ONCE SENSORY. intellectual and nutritive

A word of caution, the reference is from a book called Ecclisiasticis Dogmatibus by a man called Gennadius of Massilia, a Semipelagian priest of the fifth century. The work was originally attributed to St. Augustin and that may be why Thomas quoted him. So the quotation represents only the opinion of one Aquinas agreed with on this point. It is no different than his use of pagan authors and thinkers. So the quotation is not Catholic Dogma. I tried to add this information to the post but was timed out.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

It would be helpful if you could provide links. I couldn’t find a report on what you mentioned.

Linus2nd

 

[Blue_Horizon]

uch:uch: You are so kind.

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. "

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

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

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.

Well, we keep plugging away.

Linus2nd

Linus it is hard to discuss philosophy with someone who, in principle, believes in a completely apriori philosophic system that is can never be falsified - certainly not by new facts that contradict the observations of the very ancients who gave you your apriori system. (Of course you will either say these new empirical facts cannot be established with certainty OR metaphysics is independent of Physics).

I don’t mean to insult you, it is simply a dispassionate observation from my year or two of “discussing” philosophy with you on CAF.

I do not believe either Aristotle or Aquinas actually held to this sort of non-falsifiable philosophising. But I will be unable to convince you … just providing you a door if one day you may find yourself needing to open it.

Do you not find it unusual that you find yourself always 100% in emotional/intellectual agreement with all Church Teaching and its mainstream non-infallibly defined philosophy? You never have any doubts on any traditional teaching of the Church, not even those teachings where heterodox positions are tolerated?

If you reflect on this you must see it is abnormal. Nobody is that free of original sin, nobody is that pure in mind and heart that they con-naturally accept all truth without difficulty or disturbance or even minor reservations and uncertainties on some aspect of the Deposit of Faith.

Far more likely this sort of phenomenon is to be explained by a considerably less flattering explanation, surely. Viz an unrecognised emotional/Intellectual dependency on authority that will not allow of any suggestion that this authority may have been understood erroneously OR that it may actually be mistaken on non-infallible matters despite tradition.

I don’t expect you to agree, but you have to admit what I am suggesting is coherent and logical and possible.

I really would like to discuss philosophy with a Linus who can sometimes admit to a falsifiable philosophic position. He would be a much more reasonable a person to debate with .

The basic point I suppose I am making is this…
Please don’t pretend you are open to empirical research demonstrating that the brain can store memories. I don’t believe that for a second, it is clear from your prevarications that you are not.

Your objections are apriori against such a finding, you will never recognise any alleged empirical research to the contrary. Your apriori stance will always find “holes” in the research.

You know this, yet you try to suggest you really are open, but you are not really, are you … ?

 

[Aloysium]

The way I see it, from the start the spirit entered into the totality that is man, not just the cerebral cortex.
We may genetically produce animals with the same sort of brain structure as our own; it will not give them an eternal soul.
The human spirit is relational in nature, arising from God who is pure relationality, Love itself.
We are not a collection of biological processes contained within a sac of skin.
We are beings existing in relation to our Ground, to each other and creation as a whole.
Our being communes with that which is other to us.
As I type into this phone, the thoughts, feelings and sounds form the backdrop to the tactile and visual connection I have with the instrument.
All these impressions are brain activity tied to the physical events happening around me in the moment. Any damage to this system will impact on the experience.
Brain is experienced and understood as out there; mind is the immediate experience. There is one event - the person in the world.
I think that the only way of knowing where memory is stored is to die, since the body and spirit are one. My bet would be on spirit.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus it is hard to discuss philosophy with someone who, in principle, believes in a completely apriori philosophic system that is can never be falsified - certainly not by new facts that contradict the observations of the very ancients who gave you your apriori system. (Of course you will either say these new empirical facts cannot be established with certainty OR metaphysics is independent of Physics).

I don’t mean to insult you, it is simply a dispassionate observation from my year or two of “discussing” philosophy with you on CAF.

I do not believe either Aristotle or Aquinas actually held to this sort of non-falsifiable philosophising. But I will be unable to convince you … just providing you a door if one day you may find yourself needing to open it.

Do you not find it unusual that you find yourself always 100% in emotional/intellectual agreement with all Church Teaching and its mainstream non-infallibly defined philosophy? You never have any doubts on any traditional teaching of the Church, not even those teachings where heterodox positions are tolerated?

If you reflect on this you must see it is abnormal. Nobody is that free of original sin, nobody is that pure in mind and heart that they con-naturally accept all truth without difficulty or disturbance or even minor reservations and uncertainties on some aspect of the Deposit of Faith.

Far more likely this sort of phenomenon is to be explained by a considerably less flattering explanation, surely. Viz an unrecognised emotional/Intellectual dependency on authority that will not allow of any suggestion that this authority may have been understood erroneously OR that it may actually be mistaken on non-infallible matters despite tradition.

I don’t expect you to agree, but you have to admit what I am suggesting is coherent and logical and possible.

I really would like to discuss philosophy with a Linus who can sometimes admit to a falsifiable philosophic position. He would be a much more reasonable a person to debate with .

The basic point I suppose I am making is this…
Please don’t pretend you are open to empirical research demonstrating that the brain can store memories. I don’t believe that for a second, it is clear from your prevarications that you are not.

Your objections are apriori against such a finding, you will never recognise any alleged empirical research to the contrary. Your apriori stance will always find “holes” in the research.

You know this, yet you try to suggest you really are open, but you are not really, are you … ?

There is no need to get personal, the mods are constantly warning us to talke about issues only. Besides, it isn’t good for the blood pressure to get so worked up.

But I would like to set the record straight on a couple of things.

1. My opinions on the soul and its faculties are a posteriori based, following the teaching of A/T.
2. What the Church teaches about the soul is in the Catechism and all it teaches is that God breathed life into man and that this life the Church calls the soul, the form of man.
3. This quote of mine is misleading: " 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. "

It was an innocent mistake as seen by by correction here: " A word of caution, the reference is from a book called Ecclisiasticis Dogmatibus by a man called Gennadius of Massilia, a Semipelagian priest of the fifth century. The work was originally attributed to St. Augustin and that may be why Thomas quoted him. So the quotation represents only the opinion of a thinker Aquinas agreed with on this point. It is no different than his use of pagan authors and thinkers. So the quotation is not Catholic Dogma. I tried to add this information to the post but was timed out. "

I don’t think I need to say more except to say that my views on where memory exists are my views alone, they may or may not be those of A and T. And my reasons I have already given, so there is no need to go into them again.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

It would be helpful if you could provide links. I couldn’t find a report on what you mentioned.

Linus2nd

I am sorry the only link I can provide is the one I gave you: I rephrased the question to the internet and got the MIT experiment, and there is also other info provided from the list.

the question: Are there proofs that memories are contained in the brain? I’m not sure at providing links, I’m not adept at using the computer, it’s taken me some time to learn how to block questions and ans. It takes much time for me to do so, and provide answers at the same time. Each takes a lot of memory, and my clog arteries in the brain don’t help, I already had a stroke, a clot in the brain. Again, good hunting. P.S. I know all about high-blood pressure too

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am sorry the only link I can provide is the one I gave you: I rephrased the question to the internet and got the MIT experiment, and there is also other info provided from the list.

the question: Are there proofs that memories are contained in the brain? I’m not sure at providing links, I’m not adept at using the computer, it’s taken me some time to learn how to block questions and ans. It takes much time for me to do so, and provide answers at the same time. Each takes a lot of memory, and my clog arteries in the brain don’t help, I already had a stroke, a clot in the brain. Again, good hunting. P.S. I know all about high-blood pressure too

Good health is the important thing. Keep it safe.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am sorry the only link I can provide is the one I gave you: I rephrased the question to the internet and got the MIT experiment, and there is also other info provided from the list.

the question: Are there proofs that memories are contained in the brain? I’m not sure at providing links, I’m not adept at using the computer, it’s taken me some time to learn how to block questions and ans. It takes much time for me to do so, and provide answers at the same time. Each takes a lot of memory, and my clog arteries in the brain don’t help, I already had a stroke, a clot in the brain. Again, good hunting. P.S. I know all about high-blood pressure too

Is this the article you had in mind?
extremetech.com/extreme/123485-mit-discovers-the-location-of-memories-individual-neurons

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

Yes

 

[Aloysium]

. . . extremetech.com/extreme/123485-mit-discovers-the-location-of-memories-individual-neurons . . .

When you place an electrode on the human brain, you are stimulating a network of neurons. It is an artificially caused event that produces reactions similar to those caused by natural “(name removed by moderator)uts”.

The article provides an example of eliciting the memory of one’s first kiss. There are a number of different areas of the brain involved in such a recollection including the somatosensory cortex (the feeling on the skin), the limbic system (feelings of closeness and emotional warmth), the visual cortex (beloved’s face), etc. If you were to have a sample of brain tissue on a plate, you would get a certain number of neurons to fire. This is not a memory. The reaction might be similar to that found in a seizure. In a living subject, the person is awake and the initial sensation results in the elaboration of the memory that follows through the person’s will.

Each area of the brain has a specific role and function. There are feeling centres misused by drug addicts. There are areas that are related to the various senses as simple information and others that “process” it further such as in reading or listening. Within the brain, associations are established that underlie our so easily functioning within the physical world.

They result in the rapid understanding, for example, that is happening right here as you read. These simple connections are a form of memory. The actual ideas however, belong to the realm of ideas. Such understandings are constantly being elaborated, bringing diverse areas of the brain into communication. This happens within a person who actively seeks to understand, to establish order, to get to the truth. The truth is not merely a collection of sensations, but an insight into reality involving reason, which is what is behind this organization process of brain connections.

As I am formulating these ideas, my brain is very active.
The physiological processes in themselves at a biological level are not ordering this.
It is all very simple - a person thinks, hopefully inspired, seeks to know.
We are of this world; its building blocks are our building blocks.
As human creatures we have reason which guides us.
As our understanding grows, so too does the complexity of interneuronal connections and intraneuronal processes.
It is that eternal spirit, who we are, that moulds our presence in this physical world; and, this is no more clearly demonstrated than in the reality of the brain

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes

Here is a more interesting link focusing on the work of Dr. Wilder Penfield in the 30s through the 60s and several books he wrote. The book, The Hostage Brain contains many references to his work and that of others. Still it doesn’t prove anything other than that the soul uses the brain.

books.google.com/books?id=gmG_IiTyzkgC&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=brain+probe+causes+music+to+be+heard&source=bl&ots=pQ53K6xpbN&sig=-HpBWA3pX_ZPPgQhU1njZTGBB10&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCWoVChMI3tba6-OKxgIVkICSCh3YiQzu#v=onepage&q=brain%20probe%20causes%20music%20to%20be%20heard&f=false

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

When you place an electrode on the human brain, you are stimulating a network of neurons. It is an artificially caused event that produces reactions similar to those caused by natural “(name removed by moderator)uts”.

The article provides an example of eliciting the memory of one’s first kiss. There are a number of different areas of the brain involved in such a recollection including the somatosensory cortex (the feeling on the skin), the limbic system (feelings of closeness and emotional warmth), the visual cortex (beloved’s face), etc. If you were to have a sample of brain tissue on a plate, you would get a certain number of neurons to fire. This is not a memory. The reaction might be similar to that found in a seizure. In a living subject, the person is awake and the initial sensation results in the elaboration of the memory that follows through the person’s will.

Each area of the brain has a specific role and function. There are feeling centres misused by drug addicts. There are areas that are related to the various senses as simple information and others that “process” it further such as in reading or listening. Within the brain, associations are established that underlie our so easily functioning within the physical world.

They result in the rapid understanding, for example, that is happening right here as you read. These simple connections are a form of memory. The actual ideas however, belong to the realm of ideas. Such understandings are constantly being elaborated, bringing diverse areas of the brain into communication. This happens within a person who actively seeks to understand, to establish order, to get to the truth. The truth is not merely a collection of sensations, but an insight into reality involving reason, which is what is behind this organization process of brain connections.

As I am formulating these ideas, my brain is very active.
The physiological processes in themselves at a biological level are not ordering this.
It is all very simple - a person thinks, hopefully inspired, seeks to know.
We are of this world; its building blocks are our building blocks.
As human creatures we have reason which guides us.
As our understanding grows, so too does the complexity of interneuronal connections and intraneuronal processes.
It is that eternal spirit, who we are, that moulds our presence in this physical world that includes the brain.

This particular article deals with experimentations on mice, not men. Because of the difficulty of studying the living, human brain we may never be able to do more than make surmises about the role of the brain in memory. But, as I said before, the soul is in every part of the body, so soul would always be involved in memory, even in sense memory. It would never be the case that we could have sense memory without the active participation of the soul.

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

This particular article deals with experimentations on mice, not men. Because of the difficulty of studying the living, human brain we may never be able to do more than make surmises about the role of the brain in memory. But, as I said before, the soul is in every part of the body, so soul would always be involved in memory, even in sense memory. It would never be the case that we could have sense memory without the active participation of the soul.

Linus2nd

And I add, that it would never be the case that we could have soul memory without participation of the body, that in man the two will never be separated, hylomorphicism, man’s nature is to be viewed as a whole, union of matter and spirit. That is his being. By God’s providence.