Why does the soul need the brain?

Posted on by

Why does the soul need the brain seems like a logical question especially in the context of the belief held by the leading ID proponent of the Discovery Institute Michael Egnor. He has written extensively on the theme of the immaterial soul that, in his view, is an independent entity, separate of the human body. What Dr. Egnor consistently fails to acknowledge is the obvious connection or interdependence between a functioning brain and self-awareness or consciousness. I wrote about it here.

If certain parts of human brain are damaged or disabled, just like in case of general anesthesia, the human brain loses the sense of consciousness or self-awareness either permanently or temporarily. The immaterial soul fails to make up for the damaged or disabled brain…

Dr. Egnor’s personal experiences (and he has many) as a neurosurgeon convinced him that many people, including many of his patients, with the great majority of their brains missing have developed and function normally. Egnor is convinced that an immaterial soul makes up for the loss of brain mass that is responsible for normal brain function in people with normal brain size or no damage to any of the brain parts.

It appears Dr. Egnor believes that unlike a computer software that can’t function without the computer hardware, human brain has an ability to make up for the loss of the hardware with the computer software – the immaterial soul.

Is Dr. Egnor’s view consistent with the readily available facts?
I personally see Dr. Egnor building and supporting a strawman by his selective choice of facts…Hey! That’s my opinion and that’s why we have this blog full of experts to disagree with me or Dr. Egnor…(I kinda like the guy though).

Let’s see…First off, not all cases of patients with missing parts of their brains experience the supposed miraculous saving powers of the immaterial soul. It appears that the amount of the missing part of the brain mass doesn’t seem to matter… What seems to matter more is which part (s) of the brain is missing and not how much of the brain mass is actually missing. Some parts of the brain seem essential for consciousness and self-awareness and others do not.

However, the main point of this OP is:

<strong> Why does the soul need the brain? Or why would human body need a brain at all, if the immaterial soul has an ability to compensate for the brain losses?

If the software (the soul) can operate without the hardware (the brain) why do we even need the brain in the first place?</strong>

It seems like a faulty or at least a wasteful design to me…

1,372 thoughts on “Why does the soul need the brain?”

  1. CharlieM: Obviously I am talking about a similar phrase in relation to tetrahedra. What have bananas got to do with tetrahedra?

    OMG.

  2. walto: It’s about the same at it’s core–dunno about the edges, though. So what? Does that mean that we’re CORRECT or that we’re both English speakers? What the hell are you trying to say, exactly?

    It’s just the same old bad, dumb argument for realism about universals: that you and Charlie can both imagine triangles because your minds are directly acquainted with Triangularity, and you’ll realize this once you get past the misleading testimony of the senses, etc.

  3. Kantian Naturalist,

    Right. As I said–and I think keiths suggested as well–his main motivation seems to be to be congruent with Steiner’s view. He’s not sure what it means exactly, but that’s less important.

  4. walto:

    Not that it’s any of my business, but I think you could have done a better job answering that question. Your manner of “answering” just invited the response you got.

    Why did you put “answering” in quotes? I answered the question, plain and simple:

    Mung:

    If you are going to “physically instantiate” information you’ll need to explain how you overcome the instantiation problem.

    keiths:

    What “instantiation problem”?

    Mung:

    I’ve already explained that. Assuming you were paying attention.

    I haven’t seen a valid “instantiation problem” in anything you’ve written. Are you talking about the following supposed problem?

    Would they address the problem of reverse interaction?

    How does a physical brain conjure up or construct something that is not physical and not real and which does not exist, such that it can then create a representation of it?

    If that’s the so-called “instantiation problem”, then I’ve already addressed it:

    Mung,

    How does a physical brain conjure up or construct something that is not physical and not real and which does not exist, such that it can then create a representation of it?

    It doesn’t. The brain constructs representations, not things-that-don’t-exist.

    Walto, It seems that like Mung, you simply cannot accept reality as it is, and instead demand that it conform to your wishes. In response, it bitch slaps you and remains exactly as it was.

    Reality does not care whether you (or Mung, or Donald Trump) like it or struggle with accepting it. Deal with it, or it will just keep slapping you.

  5. keiths,

    In the words of Bullwinkle Moose, “Not That Question!” I’m going waaaay back before that in the nasty nonsense posts. I mean when he asked you to provide your “models for creationism and ID” that you claimed didn’t work nearly as well as evolutionary models. (“A trillion times worse” I believe.)

    So silly.

  6. I believe KN has had some questions for you that you’ve refused to answer too. But I know it’s way more fun and instructive to write shit like this:

    Walto, It seems that like Mung, you simply cannot accept reality as it is, and instead demand that it conform to your wishes. In response, it bitch slaps you and remains exactly as it was.

    Reality does not care whether you (or Mung, or Donald Trump) like it or struggle with accepting it. Deal with it, or it will just keep slapping you.

    Because I mean, after all, this IS the Skeptical Zone–right?

  8. It’s pretty clear, given my post, precisely which question I asked keiths that he did not answer.

    Continued proclamations from him that he did answer it doesn’t make it true.

  9. walto: I believe KN has had some questions for you that you’ve refused to answer too.

    Though harassing folks for refusing to answer questions is unprecedented in the history of this website.

  10. In the words of Bullwinkle Moose, “Not That Question!” I’m going waaaay back before that in the nasty nonsense posts.

    No, walto. You were talking about the current question, which is why you linked to the current discussion.

    You claimed that I hadn’t answered Mung’s question. I had. You got it wrong. No surprise; you tend to go off half-cocked when you’re emotional.

  12. keiths: No, walto.You were talking about the current question, which is why you linked to the current discussion.

    You claimed that I hadn’t answered Mung’s question.I had.You got it wrong.No surprise; you tend to go off half-cocked when you’re emotional.

    No I wasn’t. And I didn’t link to anything. So that’s all nonsense.

    In fact, I forgot about that one entirely. Was talking abut the biz that got this whole thread fired up. Haven’t really thought about this instantiation sub-sub-kerfluffe. Maybe you did respond to that question. Dunno. If so, Mazel tov.

    ETA: furthermore, I didn’t say you didn’t answer mung’s question, I said you answered it badly even though it was an easy question. So that’s additional nonsense.

    And of course you’ve got your nastiness in there too. Both ridiculous and mean–Bravo!

  13. Incidentally, Keith, let me add to my (non-ad hom) suggestion to fuck off, the clearly ad hom addition that I really think you’re nuts.

  14. walto: Maybe you did respond to that question.

    He responded to a question. I’m willing to entertain the idea that he was honestly confused about which question I was referring to. After all, if I have reading comprehension issues, so might keiths.

  15. Mung,

    Dunno about reading comprehension issues but I do think he’s kinda nuts. Smart doesn’t imply sane.

  16. Another unanswered question:

    Mung: Frankly, I don’t believe you. All you have to do is label it a “representation” and it becomes physical. After all, we’ve seen you do this in this very thread.

    What is there that you could not just so label and therefore deny there is anything nonphysical about it?

  17. keiths:

    No, walto. You were talking about the current question, which is why you linked to the current discussion.

    walto:

    No I wasn’t. And I didn’t link to anything. So that’s all nonsense.

    Good grief, walto. There is precisely one link in your comment, and it goes to the current discussion. Click on it and see where it takes you.

    Christ on a pogo stick. Why do you waste everyone’s time denying the obvious?

    Here’s your comment again:

    keiths,

    Not that it’s any of my business, but I think you could have done a better job answering that question. Your manner of “answering” just invited the response you got. Over and over and over. It was entirely unnecessary–except for the fact that you actually enjoy these stupid skirmishes. A better response to mung–whose questions were nothing but fat lobs across the center of the plate–could have shut off that whole 200-post “debate” (Did too! Did not! Uh-huh! Nuh-Unh You’re lying! No you are!)

    But fun is fun. Charlie gets his from trying to paraphrase Steiner. You get yours from self-glorification, calling people liars and otherwise trying to embarrass them or make them feel bad. I get mine from making fun of your nasty nonsense.

    And who is anybody to judge that kind of thing? After all, this is the Skeptical Zone–am I right???

  20. You mean the hyperlink with your name?

    Yes, of course. That’s the only link in the comment. Feeling sheepish, walto?

  21. Mung:
    It’s pretty clear, given my post, precisely which question I asked keiths that he did not answer.

    Continued proclamations from him that he did answer it doesn’t make it true.

    I hereby apologize for not keeping careful track of which of the 15 or so questions you’ve recently accused keiths of not answering that you two were fussing abut in the (unclear) post I linked to. I was talking about your requests for model specifications.

    But I’m lying about this apparently.

  23. keiths,

    What difference does it make if you happened to answer one of his 15 questions? I’ve already given you a mazel tov for that if it’s so. You want egg in your beer? (When what you really seem to need are medications that actually help?)

    Anyhow, I was talking about his requests for model specifications. As i’ve said you really bolluxed those good.

  24. What difference does it make if you happened to answer one of his 15 questions?

    Heh. Walto can’t bring himself to say, “Oh, sorry. You were right after all. You did answer his question.”

  26. Mung,

    It’s pretty clear, given my post, precisely which question I asked keiths that he did not answer.

    I answered your question about the supposed “instantiation problem”, yet you claimed I didn’t. You keep denying reality, and reality keeps bitch slapping you, as it does walto. When will you guys learn?

  28. walto,

    Let me walk you through a little exercise. Remember J-Mac, your favorite commenter? He asks a lot of questions, some of them directed at you. Do you answer every single one of them? No. Why? Isn’t every single one of those questions worthy of careful consideration and a thoughtful answer? No, of course not.

    Of course I don’t answer every single question Mung asks. I’m not an idiot.

  29. keiths,

    I can’t!!!! I tell you I can’t admit I was really talking about instantiation! I just can’t stop lying about this! I don’t know why I should think this is important or that anybody in the universe but me would, but I DO!!!

    I DO!!!! Can’t everyone see that someone needs help?? (And I’m not talking about mung here.). 🙁

  31. I can’t!!!! I tell you I can’t admit I was really talking about instantiation! I just can’t stop lying about this! I don’t know why I should think this is important or that anybody in the universe but me would, but I DO!!!

    I DO!!!! Can’t everyone see that someone needs help?? (And I’m not talking about mung here.). 🙁

    walto,

    Given the extent of your meltdown today, I have to ask: Are you sure you’ll be able to handle it if I publish an OP critical of your epistemic closure paper?

  32. I don’t mind.

    But I signed something that prohibits me from putting the final version–or any version aided by jp’s editors or referees–on the Web for either two or five years (can’t remember which). And I don’t want to put a shittier version up. Eventually it will be on JSTOR, but it’s embargoed for a while.

    But knock yourself out.

  33. CharlieM: Obviously I am talking about a similar phrase in relation to tetrahedra. What have bananas got to do with tetrahedra?

    FWIW, my idea of a tetrahedron is a triangle gone bananas

  35. Lizzie will not be party to breach of copyright.

    Relax, Alan. No one is going to post the paper.

    The OP will be about the paper.

  36. keiths,

    If the paper is unpublished, and you cannot quote from it, it won’t be a very satisfactory OP, will it?

  37. Alan Fox:
    keiths,

    If the paper is unpublished, and you cannot quote from it, it won’t be a very satisfactory OP, will it?

    It is published. It’s in the Journal of Philosophy for January, 2018. Might be able to see it at a university library free, or you can pay to get it from JP until it gets on JSTOR or I can post it myself.

  38. walto: It is published. It’s in the Journal of Philosophy for January, 2018. Might be able to see it at a university library free, or you can pay to get it from JP until it gets on JSTOR or I can post it myself.

    Well, that’s OK, then. 🙂

  39. Alan Fox,

    Well, it still may be a bit problematic to talk about something that people don’t have easy access to, but ‘that’s not what I actually said’ is pretty popular here anyhow.

    And keiths is excited about it, obviously, so what the hay.

  40. walto:
    Alan Fox,

    Well, it still may be a bit problematic to talk about something that people don’t have easy access to, but ‘that’s not what I actually said’ is pretty popular here anyhow.

    And keiths is excited about it, obviously, so what the hay.

    Recall a couple of instances where the “threatened” OP didn’t materialise. Wait and see, I guess.

  41. keiths: I answered your question about the supposed “instantiation problem”, yet you claimed I didn’t.

    You answered a question, but it wasn’t the question I was referring to. So when I said you had not answered my question, I was not referring to the question you answered. How many times do I have to say it?

  42. keiths: Of course I don’t answer every single question Mung asks.

    It’s clear to me that you’d rather not answer my questions because you think that doing so might lead to trouble for your position.

    This is just a blog, and this is just a discussion, and working toward the truth is a good thing, not a bad thing. Why let a sensitive ego spoil things?

  45. Mung: You answered a question, but it wasn’t the question I was referring to. So when I said you had not answered my question, I was not referring to the question you answered. How many times do I have to say it?

    Hmmmm. Which question WERE you referring to? (I mean, keiths will tell us that you’re lying if he doesn’t like your answer, but I’m curious what this (possible lie) will be anyhow.)

  46. walto: Hmmmm. Which question WERE you referring to?

    It started here:

    Mung: [B]y what logic do you reason that Superman and Middle Earth are non-existent?

    I’ll post his “answer” to that and my followup question. in a bit.

  48. Mung: Then by what logic do you reason that Superman and Middle Earth are non-existent?

    keiths: Via the same logic by which I reason that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don’t exist.

    Mung: By what logic do you reason that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don’t exist?

    And then the post where I make reference to those prior questions:

    Mung: No, you didn’t. I asked you for your reasoning, which you never provided. You merely provided another set of objects for which you say you employ the same logic. But we don’t know, because you refuse to share what that logic is. We don’t know if it’s the same logic or not, and we don’t know what your reasoning is in either case. You have not answered.

    Perhaps keiths just fails at reading comprehension.

  49. walto: Still not the one I was thinking of.

    Were you thinking of when I was asking him about the “creationist” models that he claimed scientists had tested?

  50. Mung:

    It started here:

    By what logic do you reason that Superman and Middle Earth are non-existent?

    I’ll post his “answer” to that and my followup question. in a bit.

    Here’s my answer to that question:

    Via the same logic by which I reason that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don’t exist. Damn, Mung. It isn’t difficult.

    So I did answer the question, dumb though it was. (Mung — if you still haven’t figured out how we know that the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist, then TSZ is not the place for you.)

    Mung wasn’t happy with my answer, and so he asked another dumb question:

    If by that you mean that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny have never been physically instantiated, then what is your evidence? I’ve seen physical instantiations of both of them.

    Of course Mung hasn’t seen physical instantiations of them. He’s seen physical representations of them. It’s the same dumb mistake he’s been making throughout the thread, and he can’t understand why I won’t drop everything in order to address it for the 87th time.

    The reason is simple: Of course I don’t answer every single question Mung asks. I’m not an idiot.

Leave a Reply