Brain vs Soul

[nightflight]

I find the idea of a "soul" nearly impossible to believe, and that's in large part to this long article: A Ghost in the Machine

In it are many examples of personality changes that occur due to brain injury/illness. After reading it I have found it very hard to believe in something like a soul that exists separate from the body.

I am an atheist because I have found no evidence that leads me to believe that the supernatural claims of any religion are true, and the notion of the soul is no exception. In fact, as this essay will demonstrate, there is strong evidence against the existence of a soul in humans, pointing instead to the alternative of materialism – that the mind is not separate from the brain, but that it arises from and is produced by neural activity within the brain. Simply stated, the mind is what the brain does.

-From the article.

 

[Chesterton]

I didn't read the whole article, but I've come across the argument before. If there is a soul, it's a fact that it "operates" through physical matter. But life itself operates through physical matter, and I have to eat food, drink water, breathe air, etc. to keep living. If my brain is damaged any number of things may happen: I may lose memory, my personality may change, or I could become vegetative, so to speak. And if my leg is eaten off by a tiger, I will also change physically in that I'll have one less leg. I don't see how either of these types of things gives any evidence one way or the other as to whether we have souls.​

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't see how either of these types of things gives any evidence one way or the other as to whether we have souls.

I would agree, and I don't expect the evidence will ever manifest. The first hurdle to clear is a definition of what we're looking for, and in past discussions we couldn't even agree on that.

 

[Stellar Vision]

I would agree, and I don't expect the evidence will ever manifest. The first hurdle to clear is a definition of what we're looking for, and in past discussions we couldn't even agree on that.

So do we just hope that the soul is real regardless of a lack of definition?

 

[bhsmte]

So do we just hope that the soul is real regardless of a lack of definition?

At this point, one must take it on faith, that a soul exists.

I have no problem with that, as long as they are respectful of those who choose to disagree, based on the lack of evidence.

 

[nightflight]

This btw doesn't in itself disprove Christianity. Groups like the Seventh-Day Adventists believe that in the Bible, "soul" simply means the person, and that while there is no afterlife in the sense of a disembodied spirit existing in another realm, there is a promised resurrection of the body.

 

[bhsmte]

This btw doesn't in itself disprove Christianity. Groups like the Seventh-Day Adventists believe that in the Bible, "soul" simply means the person, and that while there is no afterlife in the sense of a disembodied spirit existing in another realm, there is a promised resurrection of the body.

Agree.

And, if a soul is shown to exist, it doesn't support Christianity either, because it's source could have come from a myriad of places and or God's.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So do we just hope that the soul is real regardless of a lack of definition?

Pretty much, though I wouldn't count on it

 

[variant]

I didn't read the whole article, but I've come across the argument before. If there is a soul, it's a fact that it "operates" through physical matter. But life itself operates through physical matter, and I have to eat food, drink water, breathe air, etc. to keep living. If my brain is damaged any number of things may happen: I may lose memory, my personality may change, or I could become vegetative, so to speak. And if my leg is eaten off by a tiger, I will also change physically in that I'll have one less leg. I don't see how either of these types of things gives any evidence one way or the other as to whether we have souls.​

If the soul is affected by or important to executive morality that is known to be changeable via the brain then we have some very difficult theological problems.

 

[LittleQin]

Now I'm not saying this is fact but it is my understanding that the brain is the control panel for our our bodies and that it is the conscious soul that runs the controls.

The brain needs to be taken care of because damage to the brain can harm our ability to control our body. Much like old computers had hundreds of different switches, knobs etc and that if even one was damaged it would change the whole function of the machine.

 

[bhsmte]

Now I'm not saying this is fact but it is my understanding that the brain is the control panel for our our bodies and that it is the conscious soul that runs the controls.

The brain needs to be taken care of because damage to the brain can harm our ability to control our body. Much like old computers had hundreds of different switches, knobs etc and that if even one was damaged it would change the whole function of the machine.

Cool idea, but I have yet to see any evidence this is the case.

 

[LittleQin]

Cool idea, but I have yet to see any evidence this is the case.

It is also my understanding that one of the reasons God created us was so that we could study and admire the complexity and mystery of his creation.

 

[Chesterton]

If the soul is affected by or important to executive morality that is known to be changeable via the brain then we have some very difficult theological problems.

I'm not sure I know what you're saying, but maybe I do.

"To whom much is given, of him much will be required". God does not judge a king born into wealth and comfort the same as He judges a peasant born into poverty and harsh conditions, because their physical conditions are different. I don't see why it would be different with brain conditions.

 

[Davian]

If the definition is up for grabs...

""YES we have a soul but it's made of lots of tiny robots" and I thought that's exactly right. Yes we have a soul, but it's mechanical. But it's still a soul, it still does the work that the soul was supposed to do. It is the seat of reason. It is the seat of moral responsibility. It's why we are appropriate objects of punishment when we do evil things, why we deserve the praise when we do good things. It's just not a mysterious lump of wonder stuff... that will outlive us." - Daniel Dennett

 

[bhsmte]

It is also my understanding that one of the reasons God created us was so that we could study and admire the complexity and mystery of his creation.

We do study the universe and human beings extensively and have unearthed quite a bit of knowledge doing so.

 

[ananda]

I agree that the "mind" is what the brain does. However, I also believe that our "consciousness" & "chooser" is what the spirit does.

Our spirits can exercise choice and free will whether or not to listen to the (often) wild babbling of the mind. The mind can also be controlled and quieted (or vice versa) by the spirit through spiritual & mental exercises.

 

[variant]

I'm not sure I know what you're saying, but maybe I do.

"To whom much is given, of him much will be required". God does not judge a king born into wealth and comfort the same as He judges a peasant born into poverty and harsh conditions, because their physical conditions are different. I don't see why it would be different with brain conditions.

I'm saying that if you can change a persons moral decision making by changing their brain it leaves us with some interesting questions to how souls are judged.

 

[Resha Caner]

So do we just hope that the soul is real regardless of a lack of definition?

This is a restatement of Kant's "ding an sich". In science do I really need to know that electrons "exist" per the philosophical use of that term, or am I only interested in the phenomena I place under the category called "electron"?

Further, in science one purpose for studying electrons is to gain the ability to manipulate them. Would the purpose of defining & validating the existence of souls be to gain the ability to manipulate them?

For a Lutheran such as myself, the answer is no. I don't really need a definition of a soul. All it really is in Lutheran theology is a placeholder word for the idea that God won't forget who we are, and He will physically resurrect us at some point in the future. So the issue is encountering God and having faith in that promise, not trying to define words so that someone can go do an experiment on "souls".

But, for the record, if an un-believer wants to equate "soul" with "mind", and therefore thinks of it in completely material terms, I'm OK with that.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm saying that if you can change a persons moral decision making by changing their brain it leaves us with some interesting questions to how souls are judged.

According to Lutheran theology, souls aren't judged based on their moral decision making, so this is moot.

 

[quatona]

Now I'm not saying this is fact but it is my understanding that the brain is the control panel for our our bodies and that it is the conscious soul that runs the controls.

Which - in view of the fact that these controls can be easily overwritten by chemicals or other physical interventions - would render the control instance "soul" remarkably vulnerable and powerless.

The brain needs to be taken care of because damage to the brain can harm our ability to control our body.

Sure...but since this happens regardless whether we have a "soul" or not, the explanation "soul takes care of the brain in case of damage and loss of control" appears to explain nothing.