Brain vs Soul

[Resha Caner]

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.

I was partially agreeing with you, but also trying to note a distinction. So, I was referring to freeing one from constraint. If one is freed from a bad situation, and then chooses to go back to it, I think the burden of that decision is on the one who made the choice.

 

[variant]

I was partially agreeing with you, but also trying to note a distinction. So, I was referring to freeing one from constraint. If one is freed from a bad situation, and then chooses to go back to it, I think the burden of that decision is on the one who made the choice.

So, are brains involved in the process or not?

 

[Resha Caner]

So, are brains involved in the process or not?

Is there any circumstance under which a brain is responsible for the choice it makes?

 

[lesliedellow]

On what grounds do you make that assertion?

a.) Quantum mechanics aside, modern physics is still fundamentally about bits of solid stuff being pushed around by forces. That may work as a description of most of what can be seen around us, but it won't work with consciousness, which is not a force or a bit of solid stuff.

b.) For the last four centuries or so, the physical sciences have made it a matter of policy to exclude the subjective from their account of reality, in the name of objectivity. Although that may have advantages when it comes to building bridges, you cannot both deliberately try to exclude something from your account of the universe, and then turn round, and try and include it as an afterthought.

c.) There is something fundamentally fallacious about trying to account for subjective experience by doing what science usually does, which is examine the objective realm. The fallacy would soon be noticed if somebody turned the procedure around, and tried to come to conclusions about the objective world by contemplating their inner experience.

d.) The project of materialists is to try and explain mind in terms of energy and matter. Arguably, it should be the other way round. For us, our own consciousness is the fundamental datum, and matter is an abstraction which the mind invents for itself, in order to understand its experiences.

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

Faith is not bad, so long as it is recognised for what it is. "Scientific" is a label present day atheists more or less automatically attach to their own beliefs, even when they are no such thing.

Indeed. Is one molecule of water wet?

Presumably. It will have the same slight stickiness as many molecules, which is why water is wet and mercury isn't.

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

And what preconceived notions might they be? I just don't believe the bluster and bombast I hear from materialists.

 

[variant]

Is there any circumstance under which a brain is responsible for the choice it makes?

That's the next question Resha, I'm still evaluating that mootness claim you made and deciding whether in Lutheran theology, brains are involved in the salvation process.

So you should answer my question with an answer rather than a question.

 

[Colter]

“The soul is the self-reflective, truth-discerning, and spirit-perceiving part of man which forever elevates the human being above the level of the animal world. Self-consciousness, in and of itself, is not the soul. Moral self-consciousness is true human self-realization and constitutes the foundation of the human soul, and the soul is that part of man which represents the potential survival value of human experience. Moral choice and spiritual attainment, the ability to know God and the urge to be like him, are the characteristics of the soul. The soul of man cannot exist apart from moral thinking and spiritual activity. A stagnant soul is a dying soul. But the soul of man is distinct from the divine spirit which dwells within the mind. The divine spirit arrives simultaneously with the first moral activity of the human mind, and that is the occasion of the birth of the soul."UB 1955​

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The soul brain relationship is a paradox (ho ho ho my current fave topic). Well, the soul is not that brain, because each part of the brain (individually) is not the soul. Just as the wheel is not the bicycle. The wheel is part of the bicycle. Because the soul is an emergent feature, it is (a, b, c, d....x, y, z) all together. "soul" is a novel property the parts do not have individually.

If we look at say at part q, and ask "is q the soul?" then the answer is no.

But it is also the soul, in a sense, ie in the sense that the wheel is the bicycle, and if you damage the wheel you damege the bike.

And if you damage a,b c brain part, you damage the soul also. They are the soul, but just like a,b c are letters rather than the alphabet. ANd "soul" is more alphabet than letter, if that makes sense?

Hence the parts are something like tokens of the whole, but not identical to it either. We only have a finite view, piece by piece, rather than the unquantised whole as it exists independent of spectatorship of its bits. The bird singing in to forest makes a sound (and the brain is conscious), but when we listen we only access an aspect of it (x,y z sound waves from the sound cone (here, I am imagining something like a light cone, but made of sound waves. Perception is of the part, this or that aspect of the sounds emmitted, not of the whole of it).

Similarly "the soul" is the brain cone, insofar as it interacts with itself in the space time continuum. yet / however / but we see only ever see bits of it (this that or the other scan, neural imaging, this or that neuron etc etc).

We do not listen to or see consciousness (or "the soul"), we are consciousness (or "the soul").

But its aspects are open to us in part. We are the alphabet, but only ever hear and see the letters. Yet the hidden whole is something like the most obvious thing!

 

[juvenissun]

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.

Very good question. And the understanding is not a simple one. Here is the first step of thinking:

In your example, the person experienced TWO souls. One existed before the change, and one came into existence after the change.

This example does not negate the existence of soul, but complicated the nature of soul.

 

[Resha Caner]

That's the next question Resha, I'm still evaluating that mootness claim you made and deciding whether in Lutheran theology, brains are involved in the salvation process.

So you should answer my question with an answer rather than a question.

I understand, but I couldn't tell what you were really asking, so I'm trying to step back and clarify. My comment only referred to moral decision making in the context of salvation, not to all decision making.

I agreed with you that someone can reject Christ, so it seemed obvious to me the person's mind (brain) would be involved.

If that answers your question, I'd like an answer to mine as well.

 

[Smidlee]

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.

If you damage a radio it may change the sound coming out of the speaker while yet having no effect on the broadcast itself. (the funtional radio itself is not the cause of the broadcast but a broken radio could be the cause of the noise coming out of the speaker) This is why when someone has brain damage we normally say things like "that person isn't their self"
Damage hardware on a PC can cause the software to malfunction even though the acts are one yet separate. There is no doubt a brain (hardware) not function correctly can effect the input and output of the soul /person (software-that which has no mass).

 

[variant]

I understand, but I couldn't tell what you were really asking, so I'm trying to step back and clarify. My comment only referred to moral decision making in the context of salvation, not to all decision making.

I agreed with you that someone can reject Christ, so it seemed obvious to me the person's mind (brain) would be involved.

Apologies.

If the only decision that matters to the fate of your soul is the acceptance of a particular version of God then that makes it a moral decision in my book.

If that answers your question, I'd like an answer to mine as well.

Sure.

Is there any circumstance under which a brain is responsible for the choice it makes?

I would think it is always responcable as it is the system making the decisions, the question I find interesting is how dysfunctional brains are supposed to be held to the same standards as functional ones.

Our ability to make correct decisions/judgments is certainly not created equal in any case.

 

[Chesterton]

I would think it is always responcable as it is the system making the decisions, the question I find interesting is how dysfunctional brains are supposed to be held to the same standards as functional ones.

I don't know what Lutherans say specifically, but as I said, it's a general Christian understanding that they are not held to the same standards.

 

[variant]

I don't know what Lutherans say specifically, but as I said, it's a general Christian understanding that they are not held to the same standards.

Well, we've only got one very specific standard there.

Isn't everyone expected to believe?

I know a Calvinist would say no but...

 

[Chesterton]

Isn't everyone expected to believe?

I know a Calvinist would say no but...

We'd have to take a step back and unpack your statement: If the only decision that matters to the fate of your soul is the acceptance of a particular version of God... I don't necessarily agree with that, and it's probably worthy of a thread of its own.

 

[Davian]

a.) Quantum mechanics aside, modern physics is still fundamentally about bits of solid stuff being pushed around by forces. That may work as a description of most of what can be seen around us, but it won't work with consciousness, which is not a force or a bit of solid stuff.

An unevidenced assertion. You would you first have to establish what consciousness *is* - you have not done that.

b.) For the last four centuries or so, the physical sciences have made it a matter of policy to exclude the subjective from their account of reality, in the name of objectivity. Although that may have advantages when it comes to building bridges, you cannot both deliberately try to exclude something from your account of the universe, and then turn round, and try and include it as an afterthought.

I do not see how this applies.

c.) There is something fundamentally fallacious about trying to account for subjective experience by doing what science usually does, which is examine the objective realm. The fallacy would soon be noticed if somebody turned the procedure around, and tried to come to conclusions about the objective world by contemplating their inner experience.

Another unevidenced assertion. How do you know that neuroscientists are mistaken on their goals of understanding the brain?

d.) The project of materialists is to try and explain mind in terms of energy and matter. Arguably, it should be the other way round. For us, our own consciousness is the fundamental datum, and matter is an abstraction which the mind invents for itself, in order to understand its experiences.

Then present your arguments, not just your assertions.

Faith is not bad, so long as it is recognised for what it is. "Scientific" is a label present day atheists more or less automatically attach to their own beliefs, even when they are no such thing.

Those are big, broad brushstrokes you are painting people with. Perhaps you could be more concise.

Presumably. It will have the same slight stickiness as many molecules, which is why water is wet and mercury isn't.

Presumably? Is not 'wetness' the property of a liquid? Citation, please.

And what preconceived notions might they be?

Post #44:
- "...it won't work with consciousness, which is not a force or a bit of solid stuff."
- "For us, our own consciousness is the fundamental datum, and matter is an abstraction which the mind invents for itself, in order to understand its experiences."

I just don't believe the bluster and bombast I hear from materialists.

The same for me, from theists.

 

[variant]

We'd have to take a step back and unpack your statement: If the only decision that matters to the fate of your soul is the acceptance of a particular version of God... I don't necessarily agree with that, and it's probably worthy of a thread of its own.

Sure I was granting that (my understanding of the claim being made) for the sake of a better understanding of the implications of a particular theology.

 

[Davian]

“The soul is the self-reflective, truth-discerning, and spirit-perceiving part of man which forever elevates the human being above the level of the animal world. Self-consciousness, in and of itself, is not the soul. Moral self-consciousness is true human self-realization and constitutes the foundation of the human soul, and the soul is that part of man which represents the potential survival value of human experience. Moral choice and spiritual attainment, the ability to know God and the urge to be like him, are the characteristics of the soul. The soul of man cannot exist apart from moral thinking and spiritual activity. A stagnant soul is a dying soul. But the soul of man is distinct from the divine spirit which dwells within the mind. The divine spirit arrives simultaneously with the first moral activity of the human mind, and that is the occasion of the birth of the soul."UB 1955​

"The Babel fish," said The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

"'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

"'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

"Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his bestselling book, Well That about Wraps It Up for God.

"Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."

(Arthur) "If you're a researcher on this book thing and you were on Earth, you must have been gathering material on it."

(Ford) "Well, I was able to extend the original entry a bit, yes."

(Arthur) "Let me see what it says in this edition, then. I've got to see it."

(Arthur) ... "What? Harmless! Is that all it's got to say? Harmless! One word! ... Well, for God's sake I hope you managed to rectify that a bit."

(Ford) "Oh yes, well I managed to transmit a new entry off to the editor. He had to trim it a bit, but it's still an improvement."

(Arthur) "And what does it say now?" asked Arthur.

(Ford) "Mostly harmless," admitted Ford with a slightly embarrassed cough.

(Ford) "you'd better be prepared for the jump into hyperspace. It's unpleasantly like being drunk."

(Arthur) "What's so unpleasant about being drunk?"

(Ford) "You ask a glass of water."​

- Chapter 6, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Davian]

If you damage a radio it may change the sound coming out of the speaker while yet having no effect on the broadcast itself. (the funtional radio itself is not the cause of the broadcast but a broken radio could be the cause of the noise coming out of the speaker) This is why when someone has brain damage we normally say things like "that person isn't their self"
Damage hardware on a PC can cause the software to malfunction even though the acts are one yet separate. There is no doubt a brain (hardware) not function correctly can effect the input and output of the soul /person (software-that which has no mass).

Without any evidence to the contrary, it would appear that you are simply working backwards from a preconceived notion of a 'soul' to explain what we actually observe. Your assertion adds nothing to our understanding of how the brain works.

 

[Smidlee]

Without any evidence to the contrary, it would appear that you are simply working backwards from a preconceived notion of a 'soul' to explain what we actually observe. Your assertion adds nothing to our understanding of how the brain works.

Really? So what we know is true with the radio and computers that same reasoning can't be applied to the brain /soul relationship. Then claimed there is no evidence ... maybe no direct evidence.
Then there is the case where half of a girl brain was removed yet she did not become half of the person and the case where two women shared over 70% of the brain yet had two completely different personalities. The whole idea of a brain using it's brain trying to figure out how the brain works points to the fact we are more than just a brain.

 

[Davian]

Really? So what we know is true with the radio and computers that same reasoning can't be applied to the brain /soul relationship. Then claimed there is no evidence ... maybe no direct evidence.
Then there is the case where half of a girl brain was removed yet she did not become half of the person and the case where two women shared over 70% of the brain yet had two completely different personalities. The whole idea of a brain using it's brain trying to figure out how the brain works points to the fact we are more than just a brain.

Neuroplasticity is quite fascinating, but, by your own admission, we have no direct evidence that we are more than our brain/body.