Wouldn't we aware of all changes in our bodies if ours souls are in complete charge?

[GEddie]

Our control of our bodies via the soul is deficient; the Church would say because of “original sin.” Therefore, our body consciousness is flawed.

ICXC NIKA

 

[STT]

A corpse no longer has the form of a human being. It’s no longer one whole, but is simply its component parts. But the soul isn’t a ghost that has left, there’s just been a substantial change.

So you don’t believe in soul as separate substance which can survive death?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

A corpse no longer has the form of a human being. It’s no longer one whole, but is simply its component parts. But the soul isn’t a ghost that has left, there’s just been a substantial change.

So you don’t believe in soul as separate substance which can survive death?

It is not a ghost. The intellect is incorruptible and so does not cease to exist.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

It’s sort of trivially true, once you understand the form-matter distinction and terms. The soul isn’t acting on the matter, the material being (who exists with co-principles of matter and form) is actual as one whole.

I understand form-matter distinction. First, I am not only discussing hylemorphic dualism in here but I am considering substance dualism as well. Soul-body acts/cause according to hylemorphic dualism. In substance dualism soul acts/causes and body move. Yet, a body without any soul is a dead body within hylemorphic dualism.

Again, trivial. A thing which was a living thing but has undergone a substantial change to a non-living thing is non-living.

And it’s not as if the matter of a corpse is without form. You could, for example, have multiple things with the form of carbon, or iron, or water, etc… multiple substances, where once you had a unified whole.

Why?

We have these facts: (1) Soul is the form (configuration of matter according to Aristotle), (2) Soul animates and gives life to the body and (3) Soul should be aware of what it cause, like raising your hand. The question is why you are aware when you decide to move your hand but not aware of all changes in your body.

Not everything the body does is done so intellectually or willfully. Some processes are simply automated.

 

[STT]

I think the semantics of “gives life to” and “in charge of all changes” and “mind” is why its hard to discuss. Perhaps define each. Clearly the soul isn’t in charge of pumping blood around the body, that is the heart. By “mind” some people interpret to mean the physical brain so again, definitions are hazy here.

“gives life to” is clear to me. To elaborate one need to see what is the difference between dead and alive person which is soul. “in charge of all changes” can be understood as matter of the fact that soul is form, configuration of matter, and the fact that body is under constant change therefore it is soul that is in charge of all changes. By mind I meant “the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.”

 

[STT]

It is not a ghost . The intellect is incorruptible and so does not cease to exist.

The soul therefore is a thing which make a dead person distinct from a alive person. Hence that is soul which is in charge of keep the body alive. This includes all changes in the body.

 

[Wesrock]

And as a Thomist, I would have to reply that the soul is not “in charge” of keeping a body alive.

 

[STT]

Again, trivial. A thing which was a living thing but has undergone a substantial change to a non-living thing is non-living.

And it’s not as if the matter of a corpse is without form. You could, for example, have multiple things with the form of carbon, or iron, or water, etc… multiple substances, where once you had a unified whole.

Not everything the body does is done so intellectually or willfully. Some processes are simply automated.

These don’t answer my objections. Could you be alive without those process which are automatic? No. Therefore that is soul which should be in charge of what you call automatic process.

 

[STT]

Are you making the case for human omniscience? That is shocking.
(Or maybe you are baiting the answers that will not satisfy you…)

No. I am just arguing that one should be aware of what is going on in his body.

 

[STT]

And as a Thomist, I would have to reply that the soul is not “in charge” of keeping a body alive.

Do you want me to present my argument that what is the difference between dead and alive person?

 

[Usagi]

I mean, we can say with some accuracy that the brain is in charge of all changes elsewhere in the body, but that doesn’t mean that we are consciously aware of every change. Why would that be different if a soul is also involved?

 

[Usagi]

Sure, but why would that necessarily imply conscious awareness of all those processes?

 

[STT]

I mean, we can say with some accuracy that the brain is in charge of all changes elsewhere in the body, but that doesn’t mean that we are consciously aware of every change. Why would that be different if a soul is also involved?

Each individual has conscious ans subconscious brain. Each individual however has only one soul.

 

[STT]

Sure, but why would that necessarily imply conscious awareness of all those processes?

Because we do not have conscious and unconscious soul.

 

[GEddie]

If we have both conscious and unconscious mind, both lie within the soul.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Dan_Defender]

The soul is not in complete charge of the body. Otherwise our cells would be 100% efficient and we would not age or contract diseases. Maybe after the resurrection, soul with glorified bodies will be able to do this but it is not so at present.

 

[Usagi]

We don’t have two separate souls, but we don’t literally have two separate brains either — the brain has multiple parts/functions, some conscious and some unconscious. The soul doesn’t have parts, but it does have distinct functions (intellect and will, to name two). It doesn’t seem offensive to reason that it has other functions that don’t usually engage the intellect or the will (and therefore happen without conscious awareness or decision-making).

How does the vegetative-sensitive-rational soul setup work for humans? Presumably we either have all three (the first two being material aspects of the body, rather than immaterial like the rational soul) or else the functions of the first two in lower creatures are subsumed by the rational soul — which would be those unconscious soul functions I mention above.

 

[Bentaxle]

Forgive me if I bring a dumb contribution to this thread. These discussions beg a couple of questions that I have often pondered. Is the memory a function of the soul or the physical brain? Clearly, trauma to the brain can affect memory, which implies that that is where the memories lie. Does this mean we have no memory after death?
Also, given that our consciousness can be interrupted, e.g. by sleep, is that an example of our intellect operating without the memory function? I just had a minor operation with general anaesthetic, and of course have no recollection of the time spent under. Was my intellect working normally during that time but without my memory to prove to me later that I was aware?

 

[GEddie]

We do have memory while sleeping, we just don’t control access to it. Memory, in a jumbled form, composes our dreams.

Anaesthesia is not sleep, so of course we don’t dream during it. Sleeping is a normal brain function; anaesthesia is a suppression of that function.

I don’t have an authoritative answer to whether we have memory in death. Aquinas, if I understand aright, held no. Augustine held yes. Since either had roughly the same understanding of human life, the question would seem to be open, at least philosophy wise.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Aloysium]

My two cents:

We are a unity of being, matter organized into cells, tissues and organ systems that together constitute the body, and mind, the organization of neurons into patterns which reflect perceptions of various kinds, emotions, thoughts in symbolic form, all subsumed by the spirit of humanity expressing itself in the unique form of the individual person. The spirit is relational in nature, not existing as isolated being but rather as a triune entity of self-other-connectedness. This triune nature goes to the core of our being, in our relationship with the Trinity, the Source of our being.

When we perceive something, an entire network of physical events is given light. We don’t perceive all the constituent parts of this because it is all with the totality of the event itself. We can however contemplate the structure, approaching it as something separate from our self, which knows and acts.

When we remember something our spirit-body turns on various parts of the brain to result in a memory. If we lose a specific part of our brain, we can no longer remember from that point on, but can try to rationally create a pseudo memory. Damaging different nerve paths, we can lose bits of memory and time itself causes changes in neuronal connections that is noticed when we find it difficult to recall certain facts, names, songs and so on. It is the spirit that holds the memory but requires the body to make it manifest. In some near death experiences the person will remember certain experiences that the brain could not have coded, being in an unconscious or delirious state. But people can have very vivid recollections that are not explicable in terms of being made up later. It is the spirit that knows and utilizes the later intact nervous system to communicate what happened to themselves and others.

The silence of bodily functions results from there being no (name removed by moderator)ut and area of the brain to register the unnecessary information. Our conscious minds are designed to know and act, to ultimately express the capacity to love, the reason why we are here. It all exists, but the visualization of our body in the mind is just that.

I would say that the human spirit is what gives unity to the body, which is one with the spirit. We can transplant organs and grow tissues from stem cells because that order is maintained even when those cells are ontologically separated from the whole of the person.

This was going to be a short reply and I have but just started.