G
- Status
? What unifies all these phenomena
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
The mind is what unifies these phenomena.
D
davidv
Guest
The soul is what unifies these things. The ancient philophers called the soul the “form of the body”.
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
What do you mean by “the soul”?
D
davidv
Guest
Soul: That which animates life.
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
Life is animated by a soul? Does this include all life, from elephants to amoebas?
D
davidv
Guest
Yes.
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
How do you know that? Has biological science encountered the soul at any point?
N
Nita
Guest
Yes. By definition (the soul is the principle of life) all living things have a soul. But, there are three distinctive types of souls: human souls, animal souls, and plant souls.
N
Nita
Guest
Yes. Whenever it observes “living” matter.
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
Is the soul then a real, tangible thing, or is it more of an abstract?
Well, living matter is reducible to its basic chemical/physical interactions. There is no “gap” that a soul fills in. Which part of living matter holds this soul?
B
bullfrog654
Guest
thats too me mabby not god if a group of souls make a deal with god and abUSE it if the vatican prays or blesses the souls the deal with the devil is aLOWED to linger. mankind has had a many wars and (i regret i have much revenge) in recent days ive had death threats. prayer in my idealizm at times seeks justice instead of forgiveness
N
Nita
Guest
No, the soul itself is not tangible; we cannot perceive it with the five senses. But we can perceive when it is present (human) or “in act” (animal and plant) because the effects are tangible. Here is a chart giving the powers of the 3 types of soul. Hope it is helpful.
VEGETATIVE (Plant) LIFE:
Reproduction
Nutrition
Growth
SENSITIVE (Animal) LIFE
Reproduction
Nutrition
Growth
Locomotion
Sensation
Sense Appetites
RATIONAL (Human) LIFE
Reproduction
Nutrition
Growth
Locomotion
Sensation
Sense Appetites
Intellect
Will
(Nutrition “is that process by which a living being transforms what is not itself into itself.” Eg. eating food, breathing)
Altho the words are the same in each category of life, there is a big difference. And the presence of intellect and will in the human soul is a giant leap.
A human is made up of two parts - a material body and an immaterial soul. The human soul can exist separated from the body.
In plant and animal life the soul is held to reside in the material of the body and cannot exist apart from it. When alive, the soul’s presence in the material is in “act”; when the plant or animal is dead the soul resides in the material “potency”.
There are lots of philosophies out there. The above is meant to express the traditional “perennial philosophy”.
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
I think I understand the concept of a soul - but how can we know that it exists? How can we be certain that the effects of it are not attributable to something else?
N
Nita
Guest
Like what? Among other things, you know you “think”. You know you make choices. Thoughts are not “material”; a decision is not a “material” thing. You can’t put an immaterial thing under a microscope to prove its existence, but you can know the existence of your soul just from personal experience.
Materialism is the philosophy that believes only matter exists. (I’m presuming they include energy under that term also.) If materialism was true, it shouldn’t be so hard to prove it in this day and age with all the equipment we have. They could just take an individual person, give him the same choice time after time, have him choose both ways (at random). Monitor the chemical actions prior to the choice and at the time of the choice. See if you have the same chemical/neurological/… actions taking place just prior to a choice every time you choose one way and a different set every time you choose another way. Conditions have to be there prior to the choice if they are to be the determinant. Personally, I think it’s a bunch of nonsense.
Materialism not only ignores personal experience but has no explanation for the “miraculous”, other than to scoff at it. Do you really think that it was a chemical reaction in your body that is what caused you (me and all the others here) to join the CAF and ask these questions? I’m just wondering what on earth all the people who existed prior to computers did when their bodies had the same chemical actions taking place in their bodies.
I have the feeling that any materialist parent would not stand for that ethic in their child. Eg. " I know what you told me mom, but my body wouldn’t let me do it because the lithium was interacting with the hydrogen and you know that won’t let me decide to make my bed."
N
Nita
Guest
I realized I may have given the impression that what takes place physically in our body does not effect the soul. That would not be so. For example, we may have physical conditions that can have an effect on our emotions and thinking capabilities. These in turn try to influence the decision we make with our free will. A person who has developed a strong will is able to make their choice based on choosing what is right – not what feels best. They learn what is good ( from Scripture and Church) with their intellect. Decisions are made on the basis of knowledge, not passions.
Just wanted to correct any wrong impression I might have given.
Just wanted to correct any wrong impression I might have given.
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
Thoughts are functions of activity in certain sections of the brain. Any psychologist, biologist, neurologist, etc. will tell you this.
They did something like that:
online.wsj.com/article/SB121450609076407973.html?mod=hps_us_inside_today
Of course, it’s very difficult to predict with 100% accuracy given the quality of the equipment, the extremely complex nature of the brain, etc. It’s like trying to predict which way a dice will land by factoring in air pressure, wind speed, and humidity - a tiny tiny variable can change the result.
As far as I know, no miracles have been verified in any laboratory setting.Materialism not only ignores personal experience but has no explanation for the “miraculous”, other than to scoff at it. Do you really think that it was a chemical reaction in your body that is what caused you (me and all the others here) to join the CAF and ask these questions? I’m just wondering what on earth all the people who existed prior to computers did when their bodies had the same chemical actions taking place in their bodies.
Our decisions not just a simple chemical reaction, the brain is more complicated than that. It probably has more to do with electrical activity between brain cells
importanceofphilosophy.com/Ethics_FreeWill.html
It appears to us as though we have free will, and we act upon that. That doesn’t mean that we really do have it, though - common sense and naïve realism can only take us so far.
N
Nita
Guest
I’m not denying that physical activity of the brain takes place in the thinking process; but that activity is not the thought itself. The thought is a reality, but it is not a physical reality it is an immaterial one.
If a tiny variable changes the result then I would not be able to make the same decision more than once - since their is continual change taking place in the material elements of my body. I know from experience I can make the same decision more than once.
No doubt because none ever occurred there!
Healings have been verified. The Catholic Church especially is picky picky about declaring a healing miracle. It really has to be verified.
Well, if you really want to believe that you’re just some sort of physical machine running on chemical reations that have, among other things, the ability to deceive you by making it seem as tho “you” are making the decisions, then go right ahead. I prefer really having a free will to only appearing to have one.
What do you mean by “common sense and naive realism can only take us so far”? Could you clarify?
N
Nita
Guest
Interesting article. Something like what I mentioned, but not quite the same.
I don’t claim to be a philosopher or a scientist, but even as a layman I wouldn’t necessarily interpret the test as showing that the neural activity determined the decision making. All it would mean to me is that neural activity took place (thinking, no doubt) just prior to making the decision - which would be normal.
Again, I never meant to imply that the exercise of the intellect and free will powers of our soul have no relationship or interaction with the material part of our being. It is the union of the body and soul that makes us human.
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
The activity is the thought - it’s basically software running on hardware.
Changes to the activity of the brain result in changes to thoughts and experience - hallucinogenic drugs, damage to nerves, etc.
"Nita:
I meant that a tiny variable can throw off the ability of the experimenter to predict what a human will decide to do - that’s why the success rate was only 70% or so.
For a healing to be a miracle, though, it has to violate the laws of nature. Spontaneous remissions of diseases, declining of symptoms, etc. can and do happen. A better candidate for a miracle might be something that simply doesn’t happen, ever - the regeneration of a limb, for example.
Well, I’m sure you’ll agree that existence is primary, while consciousness secondary - that is, reality is how it is and is unaffected by how we think it is. If your free will is an irreducible substance that is really and wholly free, then no matter how much I argue against it, your free will will remain the same. If, however, your free will is just an illusion of sorts created from an advanced network in the forward area of your skull, then that cannot be changed by your belief.
I meant that common sense is very useful, but it cannot reveal to us all of the universe’s secrets. Common sense would not reveal General Relativity, or quantum mechanics, for example.
Brain processing generally occurs right before and during actions, though. To move a cup, the brain processes what it needs to do, and sends signals to the appropriate muscles to contract at certain times. Removal of or damage to the parts of the brain associated with moving the arms/hands results in an inability to do just that. The same applies for damage to/removal of any other brain parts and their associated functions.
- Status