The Soul and the Brain

[Zor]

This is a big theological question i was wondering about.

A very common ideology in Religion is that the core of what a person is is the intangable and often imortal Soul, which is something that leaves the human body after it dies, which is an ancient concept with roots going back thousands of years. However, modern science has shown that what makes a person a person is something more tangable, the brain, an extrodinarally complex biological computer in the skull of every human, which whe are beginging to understand. Things such as electroshock therapy and drugs can have a massive effect on the way a person thinks and acts, it is possible to (admitedly at this point very crudely) link a human's nervous system to human made computers.

As such, how do Religious People who beleive in an soul justify the brain's role in what a person is? The two are rather hard to combine, if a human body is governed by an organic computer in it's head and not a soul, what role does the soul play. Is the Immortal Soul nothing but a mindless thing unable to experiance, think, respond or emote without a body to be it's host. If not, what would happen if a person gradually had his/her brain destroyed while on life support, leaving nothing but the ability to do basic moter fuctions such as breathing and then was killed, would the soul forever be caste as such a mindless thing? How do modern Theologians justify the Soul in light of klowlage of the brain?

Zor

[Rye]

They basically say that the soul is the transmission and the brain is the receiver, and the soul has some sort of free will aspect to it, somehow.

As for justifying it, they just sort of appeal to ignorance or try to make it look equally plausible due to human ignorance about conscious thought.

[Molyneux]

They basically say that the soul is the transmission and the brain is the receiver, and the soul has some sort of free will aspect to it, somehow.

As for justifying it, they just sort of appeal to ignorance or try to make it look equally plausible due to human ignorance about conscious thought.

I have heard it put forth, though rarely, that the opposite holds - that the soul is generated as a function of the brain, and becomes an independent entity only when the brain dies.

Which means that someone psychotic now would be psychotic after death, too...rather disquieting.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

They basically say that the soul is the transmission and the brain is the receiver, and the soul has some sort of free will aspect to it, somehow.

As for justifying it, they just sort of appeal to ignorance or try to make it look equally plausible due to human ignorance about conscious thought.

I've actually never heard a fundie assert this. What I do typically hear are appeals to mystery.

[Rye]

They basically say that the soul is the transmission and the brain is the receiver, and the soul has some sort of free will aspect to it, somehow.

As for justifying it, they just sort of appeal to ignorance or try to make it look equally plausible due to human ignorance about conscious thought.

I've actually never heard a fundie assert this. What I do typically hear are appeals to mystery.

There's fundies and there's more moderate christians and mystics with a little knowledge of philosophy and know how to protect the hypothesis.

One of the ways they do this is by comparing the human to a TV or radio and say that the signal does not originate within the TV set, it comes in and makes something meaningful of the physical components.

A response to this is that the transmission is still physical in origin and computers, TVs etc are totally mechanistic devices, and we can have self-enclosed systems that generate their own signals from inputs (an analogy to sensory stimulus) from their inherent mechanical architecture (physical structure and nature of the brain) and can use this to represent their own workings through graphical specialised programs and hardware (a potential analogy for consciousness and a totally mechanistic soulless but living human individual).

[Cykeisme]

What if someone suffered from brain damage or some sort of disease that made them exactly irrational, uninhibited and aggressive? What if the combination of these traits made them murderous?
Has their immortal soul also been tainted due to the physical damage to the brain?

[Junghalli]

What if someone suffered from brain damage or some sort of disease that made them exactly irrational, uninhibited and aggressive? What if the combination of these traits made them murderous?

I'd guess most religious people would say that combination of factors doesn't actually force one into murder or totally eliminate rational thought, so some guilt would be carried over.

[Superman]

I had just assumed that the vast majority of religious types are ignorant of human anatomy and physiology. They don't realize, for example, that "feelings" are a function of the hypothalamus, and everything from moods to stress are a result of a finely tuned system of neurotransmitters.

If they believe that they're going to exist a "soul;' fist of all, what the hell is a soul? Does it have a central nervous system? How are they going to see? Does it have eyes? How are they going to know who they once were? Is the brain somehow transplanted into the soul?

[Junghalli]

I had just assumed that the vast majority of religious types are ignorant of human anatomy and physiology. They don't realize, for example, that "feelings" are a function of the hypothalamus, and everything from moods to stress are a result of a finely tuned system of neurotransmitters.

If they believe that they're going to exist a "soul;' fist of all, what the hell is a soul? Does it have a central nervous system? How are they going to see? Does it have eyes? How are they going to know who they once were? Is the brain somehow transplanted into the soul?

I think they usually just handwave away stuff like this. "It's mystical!"

[Exileman]

I've always thought of the soul as a morale compass. It allows us to differentiate between right and wrong on a 'big picture' sorta scale. Like, eventually as children we learn that it is wrong to go about naked. This isn't really something that translates from a soul, but a learning experience. However, a child instantly knows what death is and if they've caused it even having had no experience with it before. This is what I think of as the soul. As for the afterlife, I guess that there's also a secondary function. The mind, your memories and choices and personality, transfer into it. This is all just a guess and I'll only really find out if I'm both right and dead. I, thusly, don't base decisions on it.

[Darth Wong]

I've always thought of the soul as a morale compass. It allows us to differentiate between right and wrong on a 'big picture' sorta scale.

So ... does this mean that you believe sociopaths have no soul?

Like, eventually as children we learn that it is wrong to go about naked.

Why is it wrong to go about naked?

This isn't really something that translates from a soul, but a learning experience.

Exactly; morality is a cultural concept, and is taught to us by culture, thus making the soul redundant. The problem with the concept of the soul is that no one can define what it is without saying something that is either redundant or absurd.

However, a child instantly knows what death is and if they've caused it even having had no experience with it before.

That is factually incorrect. There are many recorded cases of small children staying by a dead parent or sibling and expecting the person to wake up. Sometimes, for days.

This is what I think of as the soul. As for the afterlife, I guess that there's also a secondary function. The mind, your memories and choices and personality, transfer into it.

So where are the memories stored in the case of people who are suffering severe memory loss as a result of brain trauma or age? You lose them, they get stored in some sort of spiritual savings account, and then you get them back when you die?

[Exileman]

As far as the naked thing, its not really. As I said, learned behavior. As for the rest, no idea. Really, just trying to give an answer from my view. I know I personally believe in a soul, but up I've never tried to fully define it. It's my belief, no one else has to have it and wether you do or not doesn't change either of us.

[Darth Wong]

As far as the naked thing, its not really. As I said, learned behavior. As for the rest, no idea. Really, just trying to give an answer from my view. I know I personally believe in a soul, but up I've never tried to fully define it.

So you believe in a concept, but you don't know what that concept is?

It's my belief, no one else has to have it and wether you do or not doesn't change either of us.

So? The fact that your belief is irrelevant or stubbornly held has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether you gave a meaningful answer to the question posed in this thread. You failed to give a meaningful answer to the question.

[Exileman]

As for the lack of a defined concept, yep. No real definement. As for the stuborness, not really. I've just never heard an argument that changed my viewpoint so far. Not alot of people have really tried. If I wasn't helpful in regards to the question, I'm sorry. I was trying is all I can say.

[Darth Wong]

As for the lack of a defined concept, yep. No real definement.

I don't see how anyone can believe in something if he doesn't even know what it is. Imagine this conversation:

"I believe in X"
"What is X?"
"I don't know, but I believe in it!"

Doesn't that sound ridiculous?

As for the stuborness, not really. I've just never heard an argument that changed my viewpoint so far. Not alot of people have really tried.

It's long been said that you can't reason someone out of a position that he did not reason himself into in the first place.

If I wasn't helpful in regards to the question, I'm sorry. I was trying is all I can say.

I don't think so; I don't see how anyone could read the opening post and conclude that a meaningless answer would be remotely useful by way of response.

Frankly, I think you're not telling the truth, like most people who believe in this thing we call a "soul". I think you have a pretty good idea what it is, but you avoid describing it in detail because it sounds stupid when you describe it. So instead, you define it either vaguely or not at all, because it doesn't sound stupid that way. Nobody wants to be caught explaining that a soul is an invisible, intangible magic blob that comes out of your head when you die, because that sounds silly. And yet, as far as I can tell, that's pretty much what almost all "soul" believers actually believe. They just won't say it.

[Exileman]

As for the lack of a defined concept, yep. No real definement.

I don't see how anyone can believe in something if he doesn't even know what it is. Imagine this conversation:

"I believe in X"
"What is X?"
"I don't know, but I believe in it!"

Doesn't that sound ridiculous?

As for the stuborness, not really. I've just never heard an argument that changed my viewpoint so far. Not alot of people have really tried.

It's long been said that you can't reason someone out of a position that he did not reason himself into in the first place.

If I wasn't helpful in regards to the question, I'm sorry. I was trying is all I can say.

I don't think so; I don't see how anyone could read the opening post and conclude that a meaningless answer would be remotely useful by way of response.

Firstly, I don't come from a religous parenthood. My mom avoided church, thus I was rarely there. As it comes up very seldomly, I don't really have a defined concept for a soul. I gave my best view on it above. As for why you can't see a reason for me posting in this thread, I've seen no other posts that even acknowledge the possibility of a soul in this thread, merely ones that attempt to debunk it. If a conflicting viewpoint is problematic in regards to religion here, I can accept that. I'll avoid the topic and involve myself with others that I won't cause apparent issues in.

[Darth Wong]

Firstly, I don't come from a religous parenthood.

Yes you did.

My mom avoided church, thus I was rarely there.

When people say "I'm not religous" in our society, they mean "I'm not devout". They don't actually mean that they're not religious.

As it comes up very seldomly, I don't really have a defined concept for a soul. I gave my best view on it above. As for why you can't see a reason for me posting in this thread, I've seen no other posts that even acknowledge the possibility of a soul in this thread, merely ones that attempt to debunk it. If a conflicting viewpoint is problematic in regards to religion here, I can accept that. I'll avoid the topic and involve myself with others that I won't cause apparent issues in.

It's not your "viewpoint" I have a problem with; it is the fact that your posts are completely devoid of meaning.

[Exileman]

Firstly, I don't come from a religous parenthood.

Yes you did.

My mom avoided church, thus I was rarely there.

When people say "I'm not religous" in our society, they mean "I'm not devout". They don't actually mean that they're not religious.

As it comes up very seldomly, I don't really have a defined concept for a soul. I gave my best view on it above. As for why you can't see a reason for me posting in this thread, I've seen no other posts that even acknowledge the possibility of a soul in this thread, merely ones that attempt to debunk it. If a conflicting viewpoint is problematic in regards to religion here, I can accept that. I'll avoid the topic and involve myself with others that I won't cause apparent issues in.

It's not your "viewpoint" I have a problem with; it is the fact that your posts are completely devoid of meaning.

First, I really didn't come from a religious parenthood. What reason do you have for flat calling me a liar?
Secondly, I never said that I was or wasn't religous. YOu quoted me saying something in regard to my mothers religous beliefs, not my own.
Thirdly, its your right to feel my posts don't have meaning. Hell, you own the board, delete them if you want.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I'd dare you to say "Go ahead and ban me!" but I would feel guilty if nothing else.


This board is big on the whole "justify your stance" thing. If you can't justify yourself it's better to keep your damn mouth shut and avoid the humiliation. I think almost everyone has learned that one the hard way.

[Darth Wong]

First, I really didn't come from a religious parenthood. What reason do you have for flat calling me a liar?

Your mother occasionally went to church, you idiot. Unless someone was dragging her there, that makes her religious. You're just too fucking stupid to realize the implications of what you're saying.

Secondly, I never said that I was or wasn't religous.

You believe in a soul. That makes you religious.

YOu quoted me saying something in regard to my mothers religous beliefs, not my own.

You said more than enough about your own beliefs for me to conclude that you are religious.

Thirdly, its your right to feel my posts don't have meaning. Hell, you own the board, delete them if you want.

That's exactly how you would run a web forum if you had one, isn't it? Here, we expect people to be able to explain themselves. You have utterly failed to do that. The original post asked a religious person to explain how he rationalizes the concept of the soul as it relates to the brain; you never even ATTEMPTED to answer this. Instead, you just mumbled some meaningless bullshit which you admitted that you couldn't even defend or explain.

[Lyzerious]

Perhaps the soul is some kind spirit that is imparted in all human beings?

Like once somebody is born, the child is implanted with some kind of human spirit. It would certainly explain our ability to think and exist differently from animals.

[Kanastrous]

Perhaps that might be rendered as, differently from the other animals...

With whom we still have an awful lot, in common.

[DavidEC]

No, it wouldn't explain it. There is nothing in the concept of a 'spirit' which suggests intelligence or civilisation, as if there's metaphysically anything different in our status as opposed to animals' which can't be explained by millions of years of accumulated knowledge enhancing evolved instinct.

Besides the obvious point of testing this 'spirit' with any degree of objectivity... but we're way past such trivialities.

[Lyzerious]

As in spirit I mean something we can't detect as of yet. Perhaps we merely can't see what make us intelligent.

[Superman]

Here is another all-too perfect example of human stupidity. This "soul" nonsense sounds just as stupid as any other type of mystical and superstitious crap, yet people refuse to let it go. There is absolutely zero evidence for it; in fact, this is a Greek concept that Christians have misunderstood for thousands of years.

Shrugging and stating, "I dunno, I just believe it" when it comes to a soul is no different than saying this about leprechauns, fairies,... rejecting modern medicine in favor of faith healing...