The Relationship Between the "Soul" and the Brain?

[mmarco]

You're entitled to your beliefs. But more and more, it is becoming clear that consciousness is entirely a function of neuronal activity.

You have provided no valid argument proving that consciousness is generated by the brain.

I can give you some rational arguments proving that consciousness cannot be generated by cerebral processes, nor be a property of the brain.

Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.

Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.

Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. Besides, It must be considered that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice, and consciousness is a necessary preliminary conditions for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of the sequence of elementary processes as a whole, for the reason explained in the first argument.

Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.

Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics.

Based on these considerations, it would be completely unreasonable to assume that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain.

 

[jayem]

You have provided no valid argument proving that consciousness is generated by the brain.

I can give you some rational arguments proving that consciousness cannot be generated by cerebral processes, nor be a property of the brain.

Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.

Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.

Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. Besides, It must be considered that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice, and consciousness is a necessary preliminary conditions for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of the sequence of elementary processes as a whole, for the reason explained in the first argument.

Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.

Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics.

Based on these considerations, it would be completely unreasonable to assume that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain.

I have to admit that I don’t understand your arguments. (Especially the comments about quantum states of brain cells and billions of personalities.) These seem to be philosophical, not evidential. I’m neither a philosopher nor a physicist. My training is in medicine. Where the most robust support for a hypothesis comes from empirical methods and objective study. You posted this earlier:

The basic assumption of materialism (which identifies cerebral processes as the origin of consciousness) is then contradicted by this fundamental scientific result, i.e. the irreducibility of consciousness to cerebral processes. This result represents the most strong argument in favour of the existence of the soul, as the unphysical and trascendent principle necessary for the existence of our consciousness.

As I stated earlier, if consciousness is a transcendent entity, above and beyond the realm of neurons and natural physiologic processes, then why can it be turned off by a drug that augments an inhibitory neurotransmitter? At standard doses, propofol doesn’t affect other cerebral functions. When I’m having my colonoscopy, I’m not intubated. I still breathe on my own and maintain my blood pressure and heart rate. It’s just my consciousness that’s suspended. And when the drug wears off, I wake up, with no awareness or memory of anything that occurred while under anesthesia. Propofol (at usual doses) specifically targets those regions of the brain that are known to mediate conscious awareness and sleep/arousal. To me, this is clear, objective evidence that consciousness is one of the physiological functions of our brain.

You’re absolutely entitled to disagree. But you should know—and I’m sure you do—that believing consciousness is a supra-natural phenomenon, inexplicable by science, is out of step with all current neuroscientific thinking. I provided some references in an earlier post. Do you have any references—ideally from a valid, peer-reviewed, neurological or neuroscientific source that supports your opinion? I would very much like to read it.

 

[mmarco]

As I stated earlier, if consciousness is a transcendent entity, above and beyond the realm of neurons and natural physiologic processes, then why can it be turned off by a drug that augments an inhibitory neurotransmitter?

The answer is very simple: our mind is the result of the interaction between the soul (unphysical element) and the brain. If the soul did not interact with the brain, our mind would be totally isolated from the physical reality and from other people.
Becuase of this interaction soul-brain, changes in the brain can affect our psychical experiences.
I give you an example: damages to our eyes change our visual sensations, but this does not prove that our visual sensations are generated by our eyes. We know very well that our eyes only play a preliminary role in the process that eventually leads to the generation of our visual sensations. For the same reason, the fact that alterations in the brain change our conscious experiences, does not prove that consciousness is generated by the brain. You must understand that correlation is not causation; there is certainly a correlation between cerebral processes and psychical experiences, but cerebral processes cannot generate any psychical experiences by themselves, as it is proved by the rational arguments I have given you (i am sorry that you cannot understand them)

You’re absolutely entitled to disagree. But you should know—and I’m sure you do—that believing consciousness is a supra-natural phenomenon, inexplicable by science, is out of step with all current neuroscientific thinking.

No serious scientist would claim that science can explain the existence of consciousness.

This is for example the first sentence reported in wilipedia.
Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence.[1] Despite millennia of analyses, definitions, explanations and debates by philosophers and scientists, consciousness remains puzzling and controversial,[2] being "at once the most familiar and [also the] most mysterious aspect of our lives"

Do some reasearch yourself.

 

[plugh]

I have to admit that I don’t understand your arguments. (Especially the comments about quantum states of brain cells and billions of personalities.) These seem to be philosophical, not evidential. I’m neither a philosopher nor a physicist. My training is in medicine. Where the most robust support for a hypothesis comes from empirical methods and objective study. You posted this earlier

The reason you are missing the argument is that there isn't one.

Instead, we have a wall of word salad punctuated with bloviated irrelevancies and the favourite distraction of pseudo-science: Quantum Mechanics.

The mid-paragraph changes of voice, style, grammar, presentation and discontinuous thoughts tied together with a steady diet of non-sequiturs and appeals to ignorance scream copy-paste with any originality lost to outmoded-considerations discarded centuries ago by even the weakest of critical thinkers.

The result is someone who starts off attempting to bolster his upcoming information void with a side-splitting claim of being a "physicist", who then interweaves the contradictory "science can't explain" with fatuous appeals to the "laws of physics", whilst providing nothing more than empty assertion and desperation that reeks of an emotional-dependence to an untenable position.

It's just a long-winded game of "Squirrel".

 

[jayem]

No serious scientist would claim that science can explain the existence of consciousness.

You are obviously unfamiliar with PubMed, or other medical/scientific data bases. If you search for articles on consciousness, virtually every one approaches the subject from a biological point of view.

I found one that's not behind a paywall, and actually discusses quantum considerations. From 2012, but still relevant.

http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Consciousness--biology-and-quantum-hypotheses.pdf

 

[jayem]

The reason you are missing the argument is that there isn't one.

Instead, we have a wall of word salad punctuated with bloviated irrelevancies and the favourite distraction of pseudo-science: Quantum Mechanics.

The mid-paragraph changes of voice, style, grammar, presentation and discontinuous thoughts tied together with a steady diet of non-sequiturs and appeals to ignorance scream copy-paste with any originality lost to outmoded-considerations discarded centuries ago by even the weakest of critical thinkers.

The result is someone who starts off attempting to bolster his upcoming information void with a side-splitting claim of being a "physicist", who then interweaves the contradictory "science can't explain" with fatuous appeals to the "laws of physics", whilst providing nothing more than empty assertion and desperation that reeks of an emotional-dependence to an untenable position.

It's just a long-winded game of "Squirrel".

You nailed it. It still surprises me that people resort to supernatural explanations. You can't do anything with them. They're useless. I'll delve into a bit of philosophy myself. It's true that consciousness is mysterious. The exact mechanism isn't well understood. But that doesn't mean it never will be. Invoking any kind of supernatural agency is unproductive, archaic thinking. Our brains evolved to seek reasons and explanations. We don't tolerate uncertainty comfortably. Way back in the day, when an answer wasn't immediately obvious, we made one up. Things like weather, disease, floods, earthquakes, the ebb and flow of tides, and the perceived motions of the sun, moon, and stars were all at one time thought to be the products of gods, spirits, or other supernatural entities. But as our fund of knowledge has improved, we know these are all perfectly natural phenomena. A supernatural explanation has never been proven valid for anything. So--by simple inductive reasoning--why should anyone accept a supernatural explanation for all those things we still don't understand?

 

[mmarco]

You are obviously unfamiliar with PubMed, or other medical/scientific data bases. If you search for articles on consciousness, virtually every one approaches the subject from a biological point of view.

This simply prove thatmany doctors and biologists are so ignorant that they do not understand the difference between correlation and causation. Medicine and biology are descriptive sciences that can only identify correlations. Everything that happens at the biological level is determined exclusively by the laws of quantum physics.

 

[jayem]

This simply prove thatmany doctors and biologists are so ignorant that they do not understand the difference between correlation and causation. Medicine and biology are descriptive sciences that can only identify correlations. Everything that happens at the biological level is determined exclusively by the laws of quantum physics.

You’re wrong again. Medicine does determine causation. Example: It’s been definitively shown that a mutation in the HBB gene, located on Chromosome 11, codes for a variant beta-globin chain—one the 4 protein chains that comprise hemoglobin. It can cause the hemoglobin molecule to contort into an abnormal shape, especially when in a deoxygenated state. (Interestingly, the variant beta-globin differs from the normal by only a single amino acid.) Anyone who inherits a mutated HBB gene from both parents will have Sickle Cell Anemia. This HBB mutation isn’t just correlated with SC disease. It’s the cause of it. And there are many more examples.

You’ve made several references to the soul. What is it exactly? From where does it originate? What does it do? Can you demonstrate that such an entity even exists in any manner other than as a mental construct fabricated to explain what you can’t explain otherwise?

 

[mmarco]

It’s been definitively shown that a mutation in the HBB gene, located on Chromosome 11, codes for a variant beta-globin chain—one the 4 protein chains that comprise hemoglobin.

The effects of the gene are dur to a sequence of chemical reactions, and all chemical reations are a direct consequence of the laws of quantum physics

You’ve made several references to the soul. What is it exactly? From where does it originate? What does it do? Can you demonstrate that such an entity even exists in any manner other than as a mental construct fabricated to explain what you can’t explain otherwise?

I have provided rational and scientific argiments that proves that consciousness is not reducible to brain processes and to the laws of physcis; you have raised no valid counter arguments.. It is worth considering that the current laws of physics explain with great accuracy all chemical and biological processes, including cerebral processes. Devolopments in physics are expected to refer to high energy processes or cosmology, but it is unreasonable to hypothesize that we will find new laws of physics that will change our descriptions of biological processes. The point is that we do not need new laws of physics to explain biological and cerebral processes, because such processes are perfectly reducible to the current laws of physics, while consciousness is not. Since consciousness is irreducible to cerebral processes and to the laws of physics, the only rational explanation for the existence of consciousness is that an immaterial/unphysical element exists in us and interacts with cerebral processes, and our mind is the result of such interaction.

The nature of such non-physical element and of its interaction with the brain cannot be investigated through the scientific method, since it is not physical. Therefore, the problem to establish the nature of such non-physical element does not belong to the scientific domain, but to the metaphysical domain, and it is a matter of personal beliefs. In conclusion, an honest scientist must recognize that science has some intrinsic limits and that consciousness is certainly beyond such limits.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hi, I have a quick question.

What do you believe is the relationship between the "soul" and the brain?

Usually, the "soul" of a human being is described as someone's overall personality, character, etc. How does this "soul" connect to someone's brain? Is the brain just an instrument that someone's "soul" uses to express itself?

Well the brain is a physical organ.

The "soul" is a difficult to pin concept. In its most basic, simplest sense the "soul" is simply the life of something, what in Hebrew is called nephesh and in Greek called psuche--both having the literal meaning of "breath". In Genesis ch. 2 the creation of Adam is described with God breathing into the dead lump of clay and turning man into a nephesh chayya, a "living, breathing creature".

There were different ideas of what a psuche, a "soul" was among the various Greek philosophers. According to Aristotle there were different "kinds" of "souls", the lowest being the "vegetative soul", the sort of life which plants have; the second was the "animal soul", the kind of life that all various creatures have, and finally the "rational soul" which was unique to human beings.

So when Christianity speaks of "the soul", these two streams of though, Hebrew and Greek, are employed to various degrees. Though unfortunately there have been many times where the Platonic view of the soul (the view particularly associated with Plato) has taken prominence, leading to the idea that the "soul" is some kind of inner, more true "me"; a kind of "ghost in the shell". This is inaccurate. Rather "the soul" refers to both our basic biological life--we breathe, we are alive, we aren't dead corpses rotting in the ground; as well as speaking to our reasoning faculties, we are rational animals, moral animals.

So the human "soul" in this sense simply speaks to the kind of life we have as human beings.

In that sense the "soul" is more of an abstract rather than concrete thing. It's not that I "have" a soul, it's that I am a soul. In the same way it's not that I "have" a body, I am my body.

At the same time, the idea of the soul also points to the fact that we aren't just our bodies. My human personhood is not just bio-chemistry, who I am is more than just the sum of my biological clockwork. So that the Christian believes and hopes that even after bodily death (which the New Testament often describes as "sleep", the body sleeping in the ground awaiting the future resurrection of the body at Christ's return) we shall, in some sense, experience the foretaste of that which we hope for as Christians: God putting all creation to rights, and all creation enjoying the fullness of God. This is described in the Bible as being "away from the body and present with the Lord", and is often described in short hand as "going to heaven when we die". But it's not about souls springing out of our bodies and going skyward to some place called "heaven"; it's about a conscious rest with God as we await the resurrection of the dead and God's renewal of all things. "Heaven" in that sense is just a lobby, and talking about the "souls" in heaven is simply a way of talking about human persons being kept in God's presence, rather than some "thing" called a "soul" going to some location in the "afterlife".

Which gets us again to my initial point: the soul is a difficult to pin down concept.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jayem]

The effects of the gene are dur to a sequence of chemical reactions, and all chemical reations are a direct consequence of the laws of quantum physics



I have provided rational and scientific argiments that proves that consciousness is not reducible to brain processes and to the laws of physcis; you have raised no valid counter arguments.. It is worth considering that the current laws of physics explain with great accuracy all chemical and biological processes, including cerebral processes. Devolopments in physics are expected to refer to high energy processes or cosmology, but it is unreasonable to hypothesize that we will find new laws of physics that will change our descriptions of biological processes. The point is that we do not need new laws of physics to explain biological and cerebral processes, because such processes are perfectly reducible to the current laws of physics, while consciousness is not. Since consciousness is irreducible to cerebral processes and to the laws of physics, the only rational explanation for the existence of consciousness is that an immaterial/unphysical element exists in us and interacts with cerebral processes, and our mind is the result of such interaction.

The nature of such non-physical element and of its interaction with the brain cannot be investigated through the scientific method, since it is not physical. Therefore, the problem to establish the nature of such non-physical element does not belong to the scientific domain, but to the metaphysical domain, and it is a matter of personal beliefs. In conclusion, an honest scientist must recognize that science has some intrinsic limits and that consciousness is certainly beyond such limits.

OK. You believe consciousness is inexplicable by naturalistic science. You support it by unintelligible quantum arguments. You're entitled to your opinion. But it's only an opinion. You've provided no references to support it. As I see it, it's religious doctrine cloaked in science babble. Instead of wasting time and energy on an internet message board, why don't you submit your ideas to a neuroscience journal? Just a letter will suffice. I found a list for you:

Journal Rankings on Neuroscience (miscellaneous)

It's true that consciousness is poorly understood. But I'm extremely skeptical of claims that something can never be known. Consider the state of knowledge 300 years ago. Isaac Newton was still alive. He discovered the mathematical formula showing that the force of gravity between 2 objects is directly proportional to their masses, and inversely proportional the distance between their centers. But did he have a clue that gravity is a distortion of the time-space continuum? Or that a particle acquires mass by interaction with a boson while passing through the Higgs field that permeates the entire universe? None of us have the faintest idea of what we may learn 300 years from now.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Hi, I have a quick question.

What do you believe is the relationship between the "soul" and the brain?

Usually, the "soul" of a human being is described as someone's overall personality, character, etc. How does this "soul" connect to someone's brain? Is the brain just an instrument that someone's "soul" uses to express itself?

Hmmm .... I don't know. As the Bible is not a science textbook. To me the brain is the driving mechanism to move the body, the soul in that sense should be connected first to the brain. If the brain is damaged it would affect the body, whether this affects the ability to think I do not know.

 

[JohnClay]

A related thing is "split brain" patients.... this involves the link between the two brain hemispheres being cut and they seem to have two separate minds.... the audience is laughing though the speaker seems to be serious....

I wonder if they'd share a soul?

 

[Vap841]

It would actually be more shocking to not have any side effects after cutting someone’s brain in half. People are complicated composites of logic and emotions. There are stories with split brain patients such as a guy is getting dressed for work and his right hand is trying to button his shirt but his left hand is trying to unbutton it. In one case a guy went to hug his wife with his one arm, but he punched her in the face with his opposite fist. Here we have perhaps a more emotional region of the brain choosing atheism, and perhaps the more logical region of the brain choosing theism, or vice versa.

None of these things should be shocking, it really can’t be downplayed that we have cut the brain in half lol. How many people are less than 100% on decisions of all kinds? 40% of me almost called out of work today. Trying to both button and unbutton a shirt seems like a coordination side effect (although there are also motor skill issues based on things being in your left or right line of sight). And I doubt that it would be too shocking to imagine a husband out there who has entertained punching his wife in the face, although prior to chopping the dude’s brain in half his will had better control of his animal instincts. The “Problem of Evil” alone could cause someone’s emotional region to choose atheism yet their logical region to choose theism…or to flip out on their boss vs grin and bear it. Who truthfully is 100% atheist or 100% theist? Who doesn’t have doubts about either?

 

[Hawkins]

Hi, I have a quick question.

What do you believe is the relationship between the "soul" and the brain?

Usually, the "soul" of a human being is described as someone's overall personality, character, etc. How does this "soul" connect to someone's brain? Is the brain just an instrument that someone's "soul" uses to express itself?

Do you have some computer concepts? It's more like a clustered failover computer setup at a backup site. The soul resides at other space, which is actually the main computer. The brain is more like a temporarily operated computer which is expected to fail at some point. When it fails, the main computer is considered to naturally "descend" to Hades. Some humans are with an exception. Lazarus in the parable is "carried" by angels to Abraham's Bosom (also referred to as the third heaven, i.e., in terms of spaces).