Brain vs Soul

[bhsmte]

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

What about other theologies?

 

[Resha Caner]

What about other theologies?

That's for them to say.

 

[LittleQin]

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.


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.

Chemicals are building blocks the God seems to use to manifest things into this realm. We as humans are also learning how to manipulate these building blocks of the physical.

In doing this we are seeing more of our potential but are also revealed a warning: to not create substances control our bodies and kick our will out!
These bodies we are gifted with are to be vessels of the holy spirit so leaving the power to adversaries is most unwise.

Hope that elaborates on my understanding a little.

Blessings

 

[quatona]

Chemicals are building blocks the God seems to use to manifest things into this realm. We as humans are also learning how to manipulate these building blocks of the physical.

In doing this we are seeing more of our potential but are also revealed a warning: to not create substances control our bodies and kick our will out!
These bodies we are gifted with are to be vessels of the holy spirit so leaving the power to adversaries is most unwise.

Hope that elaborates on my understanding a little.

Yes sure...except it doesn´t seem to address my points.

 

[Tree of Life]

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.

-From the article.

Materialism has its own problems. Mental causation for instance. If the mind and the brain are identical then how can I change your mind by using intangible things like words and concepts? If the mind is the brain then I should only be able to change your mind only by physically interacting with your brain. But as it is, I can change your mind by using words. Words communicate ideas. Ideas are intangible.

Lights out for materialism?

 

[Davian]

Materialism has its own problems. Mental causation for instance. If the mind and the brain are identical then how can I change your mind by using intangible things like words and concepts? If the mind is the brain then I should only be able to change your mind only by physically interacting with your brain. But as it is, I can change your mind by using words. Words communicate ideas. Ideas are intangible.

Lights out for materialism?

Current neuroscience does not posit that the mind and the brain are identical. "Mind" is something the brain does.

 

[Tree of Life]

Current neuroscience does not posit that the mind and the brain are identical. "Mind" is something the brain does.

What is that supposed to mean and how is that supposed to be different?

 

[Davian]

What is that supposed to mean and how is that supposed to be different?

Mind is to the brain as digestion is to the stomach.

Can you seriously declare "Lights out for materialism" and not know this?

 

[Tree of Life]

Mind is to the brain as digestion is to the stomach.

Can you seriously declare "Lights out for materialism" and not know this?

The stomach digests food. That's a material process. What exactly is the mind?

 

[Davian]

The stomach digests food. That's a material process. What exactly is the mind?

Exactly? I couldn't tell you that any more than I could tell you exactly what digestion is.

In neuroscience terms, the mind is a process of the brain. It may be that you have a different concept of "mind".

I did have a short thread here where I explored the concept of consciousness. link

 

[variant]

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

Right because whatever you do base it on couldn't possibly be affected by the functionality of the decision making portion of the brain.

 

[Chesterton]

Right because whatever you do base it on couldn't possibly be affected by the functionality of the decision making portion of the brain.

Why not?

 

[KCfromNC]

Materialism has its own problems. Mental causation for instance. If the mind and the brain are identical then how can I change your mind by using intangible things like words and concepts? If the mind is the brain then I should only be able to change your mind only by physically interacting with your brain. But as it is, I can change your mind by using words. Words communicate ideas. Ideas are intangible.

Lights out for materialism?

Let us know when you manage to communicate words using no physical medium.

 

[Tree of Life]

Let us know when you manage to communicate words using no physical medium.

Words are communicated through physical media, no doubt. But meaning is intangible.

 

[Resha Caner]

Right because whatever you do base it on couldn't possibly be affected by the functionality of the decision making portion of the brain.

So, Lutherans speak of the bondage of the will (per Luther's famous essay on the subject).

If someone tied you up, forced a gun into your hand, and then used their hand to force you to pull the trigger, it would seem rather unfair if you were convicted of murder. Similar complaints are made against Christianity here - all the theodicy that goes on - that God's condemnation of people for a situation He is supposedly responsible for is unfair.

In Lutheran terms we would somewhat agree by saying your will has been bound by sin. You can't find God - can't make a "decision to accept Christ" as many American Christians will phrase it. Something has to happen - someone from outside you - has to free your will.

 

[lesliedellow]

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.

-From the article.

Whether or not the soul qualifies as super natural, I do not know. But there is one thing I do know, and that is that sentience is not explicable in terms of the current scientific conception of the universe. The idea that it is, is pretty much an act of faith on the part of materialists.

Ask them for an explanation, and you will get a lot of embarrassed hand waving, there will be talk of it being an epiphenomenon, or that it is somehow "emergent"; you will even be told that it is an illusion. But you will get no explanation.

 

[variant]

Why not?

Sorry I was being sarcastic.

 

[variant]

So, Lutherans speak of the bondage of the will (per Luther's famous essay on the subject).

If someone tied you up, forced a gun into your hand, and then used their hand to force you to pull the trigger, it would seem rather unfair if you were convicted of murder. Similar complaints are made against Christianity here - all the theodicy that goes on - that God's condemnation of people for a situation He is supposedly responsible for is unfair.

In Lutheran terms we would somewhat agree by saying your will has been bound by sin. You can't find God - can't make a "decision to accept Christ" as many American Christians will phrase it. Something has to happen - someone from outside you - has to free your will.

If the process is controlled by another being outside yourself then it is not something that can be judged by that being.

Not if you believe in a just or fair God anyway.

Lutherans teach that damnation is a result of an unbelievers sin, rejection of the forgiveness of sins and unbelief.

If the physical brain has any part in the process of belief, then it is open to the problem of a physical barrier to belief.

 

[Davian]

Whether or not the soul qualifies as super natural, I do not know. But there is one thing I do know, and that is that sentience is not explicable in terms of the current scientific conception of the universe.

On what grounds do you make that assertion?

The idea that it is, is pretty much an act of faith on the part of materialists.

Faith is bad. I am still amazed when theists use their own terms in the pejorative.

Ask them for an explanation, and you will get a lot of embarrassed hand waving, there will be talk of it being an epiphenomenon, or that it is somehow "emergent";

Indeed. Is one molecule of water wet?

you will even be told that it is an illusion.

I prefer "construct", as "illusion" has implications of deception.

But you will get no explanation.

Not one that would fit your preconceived notions of soul/sentience/consciousness, no.

 

[Chesterton]

Sorry I was being sarcastic.

Sorry, I was being slow.