If only souls had a brain

[Merle]

Recently I received a comment from Ian Wardell arguing against my page on the Secular Web, https://infidels.org/library/modern/is-there-life-after-death/.

Wardell argued that there is a soul separate from the brain, and that all conditions that we observe when the brain is affected are issues with input and output to the soul. As he put it, it is like souls having damage to the lenses in the eyeglasses they wear. To him, souls can communicate both through a brain, or by other means. At death, the connection through the brain fails, but the soul lives on, able to communicate through other means.

However, we know of many brain conditions that do more than just hinder our input (such as blindness or loss of hearing) or hinder our output (such as paralysis or Parkinson's). We know conditions that truly affect the mind. So, if the soul lives on after death without a brain, is it endlessly wandering what would happen, if only it had a brain?

If only souls had a brain, they could learn new things. But as strokes teach us, damage to the brain can hinder remembering new things. What good is eternal existence that never remembers anything that happens for eternity?

If only souls had a brain, they could remember what they already know. But brain damage can prevent us from recalling things we once knew. What good is eternal existence that never remembers who we were on Earth, or even the basics of existence, morality, communication skills, etc.?

If only souls had a brain, they could be conscious. But anesthesia shows us that certain effects on the brain bring consciousness to a halt. What good is eternal existence that is never conscious of existing?

If only souls had a brain, they could view the world in a coherent manner. But as dementia shows us, brain deterioration can affect our abilities to think coherently. What good is eternal incoherence?

We now know of things like dark energy and dark matter. Is it possible that some day we will discover something akin to these, something not made of ordinary matter and energy that is part of our minds and contributes to thoughts? Perhaps. And could that essence continue on after death? Perhaps. But, if this happens, then, if such souls could express themselves, perhaps they would sing something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nauLgZISozs .

And if my soul lives on with a different brain, well, that is basically reincarnation. One wonders why I should be concerned about a reincarnated soul any more than I am concerned about a water molecule in my brain that survives in other brains long after I am gone.

You may claim an eternal soul. If only it had a brain.

Ian's comment and my response are found at the bottom of this post: https://mindsetfree.blog/dare-to-question/is-there-life-after-death/ .

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

Sir:

Why should the eternal soul, which is without time, be weighed down & impeded by the brain, which is within time? Why, pray tell, should the soul opt for our mode of cognition? The brain is comparatively slow and inefficient because it less direct; for the simple reason that it must stands in the middle between the thinker and the thought-of object. It is therefore distortive, and the exclusive reliance on it is productive of all manner of illusions. Aside from this, why should we expect the soul have to bring itself down to our level? Ought not we rather to ascend to its level?

What, pray say, is memory? Does it truly exist, or is it but a manifestation of recall? How can we be certain that all information does not already reside within us, & that what is referred to as memory is in fact simply the ability to recall said information? You have not provided us with a manifest definition of memory, nor furnished us with a shred of evidence to suggest that it exists, much less that it is contingent upon the workings of the brain.

The capacity to recall memories & articulate them has been shewn to be influenced by the state of the physical brain, yet memory itself has not been shewn to be similarly influenced. In fact, it is not a matter that can be demonstrated; for we have only recall on which to rely, & recall can only inform us of the existence of a memory when it successfully retrieves it. When recall fails to retrieve a memory, we cannot infer from that whether the memory exists but simply cannot be recalled for other reasons, or whether it does not exist at all.

The nature of memory is indeed a profound mystery that eludes our grasp; one of the greatest enigmas of the universe. Tthose who presume to know it are, as far as I can tell, just as ignorant of its true nature of it as any primitive savage. (The ancients may well have had a firmer grasp of its nature, that is, if the demonstration of superior ability in something is demonstrative of a better understanding of that thing.)

Even if memory were shewn to be contingent upon the activity of the brain, this may hold little relevance to the subject at hand; for many philosophers, particularly those who hold a worldview contrarious to the materialistic perspective of which you appear to be a staunch advocate, posit that the physical world is contingent upon the same immaterial substrate as that on which the categories of the mind, the laws of logic, mathematical truths, & so forth, likewise subsist.

Now, should the soul possess a lesser capacity for memory, & I would remind you that you have not provided us with sufficient reason to believe this to be the case, it may be that the soul is guided by a higher intelligence surpassing that of the brain, & is able to do so precisely because it is unencumbered by a brain. Instead of cognition it has pure intellection & direct insight into the nature of things, without the intermediary of the brain as an instrument of thought. This on the face of it would appear to be a far more efficient mode of intellection.

The brain moreover serves to distort & produce illusions. It is a most unreliable instrument of thought, and we use it less than we think we do,—especially when we are thinking correctly. Rememberance takes one out of the present moment, which severs our otherwise direct connexion to reality.

I also find forgetfulness to be a greater virtue than that of rememberance. On the whole memory is one of most overrated of all things. The less I have of it the smarter, more creative, & more insightful I am, personally; & I have observed that the best men tend to be the forgetfullest. In my experience, the best people tend oftenest to be of the forgetful type, and that is oftentimes the real reason why they are also the most forgiving; the two go hand in hand.

Yours cordially,
Lord Osmund de Ixabert

​

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Meanwhile, Catholic philosopher Ed Feser has announced on his blog he is putting the finishing touchess on his book about souls. Feser, an Aristotle - Aquinas fanboy is considered a "sophisticated theologian - philosopher". Feser writes lots of books. All your questions about souls will be answered. Or maybe not. A few months back, I dug around various Catholic catechisms et al looking for official RCC dogmas about what is the soul. The RCC is very vague about the subject.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

I must apologise for the confusion in the first paragraph of my previous post above. It appears I have made some grammatical error which have led to a few incoherences. I respectfully request that you disregard the first paragraph of my message above and focus upon the remainder, for it is the content that is truly of import. I assure you that the rest of my missive shall be of a more coherent and polished nature.​

 

[Politesse]

Meanwhile, Catholic philosopher Ed Feser has announced on his blog he is putting the finishing touchess on his book about souls. Feser, an Aristotle - Aquinas fanboy is considered a "sophisticated theologian - philosopher". Feser writes lots of books. All your questions about souls will be answered. Or maybe not. A few months back, I dug around various Catholic catechisms et al looking for official RCC dogmas about what is the soul. The RCC is very vague about the subject.

Purposefully, in fact. Touches on one of those areas of "apophatic knowledge" they go out of their way to avoid taking official positions on, like the exact nature of the incarnation, or whether God has a physical appearance.

 

[blastula]

I can't understand what a soul is supposed to do that a brain doesn't already do, other than being eternal.

 

[lostone]

Meanwhile, Catholic philosopher Ed Feser has announced on his blog he is putting the finishing touchess on his book about souls. Feser, an Aristotle - Aquinas fanboy is considered a "sophisticated theologian - philosopher". Feser writes lots of books. All your questions about souls will be answered. Or maybe not. A few months back, I dug around various Catholic catechisms et al looking for official RCC dogmas about what is the soul. The RCC is very vague about the subject.

Purposefully, in fact. Touches on one of those areas of "apophatic knowledge" they go out of their way to avoid taking official positions on, like the exact nature of the incarnation, or whether God has a physical appearance.

The more vague they can get away with being, the better, from their POV. Few details are given about the exact nature of what they do in heaven forever or about the characteristics of this soul.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Aristotle, "De Anima", "On The Soul". Aristotle's hylomorphism. Substances have forms. Plants have an appetitive soul that allows them to grow. Animals have a hylomorphic form that allows animals to move. Man has hylomorphic form of intelligence. Aristotle states this hylomorphic form of intelligence is immortal and can exist apart from substance and is eternal. Aristotle is a big deal for today's neo-Thomists. Yes, our intelligent soul can exist apart from matter, fluttering about like a little fairy. Hylomorphism is an idea that in the end was and is nonsense. A vague metaphysical hypothesis that in the end explains everything and thus nothing.

 

[Elixir]

I listened to a supposedly well respected theologian on NPR a while back, who argued that "the soul" was a relatively recent invention of the church, and a perversion of the word for "breath" in some ancient language.

 

[bilby]

We need not understand anything about souls to be certain that brains cannot possibly communicate with them - because we do understand everything that can possibly interact with a brain in a non-destructive way.

There are four (and only four) fundamental forces that operate at the scale of living brains; We know that there cannot be any others, unless our understanding of physics is wildly and completely wrong (it's not; we checked). None of these could possibly mediate interactions between soul and brain without being readily detectable, and yet all attempts to detect them have failed.

Brains are serious impressive bits of matter; But they're still just matter.

Souls are less real and less sensible than phlogiston. But for some reason remain bizarrely popular. A key element of that reason is that most people don't learn much physics.

We know, with certainty, how to get people to the Moon and return them safely to Earth. But most people are utterly clueless about how to go about such a thing. We also know, with certainty, that dualism is wrong. But again, most people are utterly clueless about this. So we live in a world where people doubt the factuality of the Apollo program, and believe that souls are a possibility. Because people are ignorant fools.

Demonstrating a plausible mechanism by which souls might relate to brains is exactly like demonstrating a plausible perpetual motion machine. It's literally and absolutely impossible, unless everything we think we know about everything is wrong - and it really isn't; We checked quite thoroughly, and at least some of the stuff we know about things is right, because if it isn't, all our technology just happens to work by pure luck, despite being based on ideas that are completely false.

 

[Politesse]

I listened to a supposedly well respected theologian on NPR a while back, who argued that "the soul" was a relatively recent invention of the church, and a perversion of the word for "breath" in some ancient language.

Hebrew, of course. נְשִׁימָה, "Ruach", means breath or wind. Loving things were made animate by the ruach of G-d, literally not figuratively breathing life into the clay.

Quite a range of words were translated into the Latin Vulgate as anima, or soul. Whether you consider St Jerome to be relatively recent is a subjective matter. Anima has a similar etymology, but was already being used as the common term for the soul or psyche, long before Jerome's time. Aristotle's famous work "Peri Psyches"/"On the Soul" was composed in the 4th century BCE, for instance, nearly five centuries earlier than the compilation of the Christian canon, and translated into Latin as "De Anima" not long after. And it is very clear in Aristotle that something supernatural is meant by the term.

 

[Politesse]

That should be "living things". Autocorrect and I do not get along.

 

[southernhybrid]

The only soul I believe in, is the type that the late James Brown was known for....
"If you didn't have soul, I know you wouldn't be in here".

Couldn't resist...

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I listened to a supposedly well respected theologian on NPR a while back, who argued that "the soul" was a relatively recent invention of the church, and a perversion of the word for "breath" in some ancient language.

The concept of souls is quite ancient. Ancient Egyptians were taught mankind has three kinds of souls. This idea long predated Judaism and Christianity. We have the Bible tall tale of the Witch of Endor calling up the shade of the prophet Samuel for King Saul.

Obviously the writers and redactors of the Torah knew zip about Egyptian religion or metaphysics. Or Greek ideas about Hades.

 

[Politesse]

We have the Bible tall tale of the Witch of Endor calling up the shade of the prophet Samuel for King Saul.

And you believe that what he called up was a soul? Why do you believe that?

 

[lostone]

Maybe Ednor was an ancient master of showmanship and called up a persuasive sound and light show, or else provided some very good hash for his guests.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

We have the Bible tall tale of the Witch of Endor calling up the shade of the prophet Samuel for King Saul.

And you believe that what he called up was a soul? Why do you believe that?

Immaterial, survives bodily death, and is sentient.

 

[Politesse]

We have the Bible tall tale of the Witch of Endor calling up the shade of the prophet Samuel for King Saul.

And you believe that what he called up was a soul? Why do you believe that?

Immaterial, survives bodily death, and is sentient.

I see where the story implies one of those things quite clearly. Samuel was certainly dead, and the diviner (witch is a bad translation) certainly attempts to call him back. But are the other two in the text, or are they your interpolation of modern assumptions into the story?

I note that what Saul asks for is a divination by means of a spirit or demon. Not the summoning of the ruach of god we have been discussing. The spirit that is thus conjured is angry to be "called up", and speaks only doom to Saul. Is what was brought up from the Land of the Dead really the same Samuel, or all of the same Samuel, as the man discussed elsewhere in the book? As a summoned demon is he fully "sentient", as you say? Or is he some other sort of leftover, conjured up like a golem to the ruination of both caster and client? If you truly believe this is a story about dualist soul in the modern (and not especially Jewish) sense, is that the text's assumption, or yours?

 

[Politesse]

The concept of souls is quite ancient. Ancient Egyptians were taught mankind has three kinds of souls.

You contradict yourself here. The Ancient Egyptians obviously did not share your assumptions about souls, if to approximate the concept of a soul you have to reference what to them were three entirely different parts of the body, the ka, ba, and akh, none of which exactly match the modern definition of a soul. The akh, for instance, was by no means an entity that "survived death", it could only be granted after death, and only to a some. A murderer or a prostitute could never expect to possess an akh, for instance. That's not how Protestant Christian souls of the kind you are advocating for work, a soul is not produced for you when you die and it has nothing to do with whether you are virtuous or not. The ba was even more rare accroding to some ancients, during later periods seen as the possession and province of kings alone, hence these massive pyramids for a king's ba to reside in. Others believed that everyone had a ba, and that it was mobile in every way that one's ka was not, adhered to a corpse as the latter was.

History and philosophy are far more complex and varied than your simplistic characterizations of them.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The ancient Egyptians did claim mankind had three kinds of souls. Later Egyptian metaphysicians upped that to five kinds of souls and then, seven kinds. Concepts of souls is indeed ancient. And rather speculative at best. In Plato's dialogue, "The Laws", Plato tells us we survive death so God could make good evils suffered in this life for good people. Souls again. Ancient Egyptians taught the souls of good Egyptians after death, enjoyed life after death in "The Western Lands". The idea we had souls that survived bodily death is old, and widespread.