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)We were talking about the existence of logic not it’s use.
2) humans can use logic only because we are created in the image of God
3) You are thinking way too deeply here. It was just a little throw away complement based on your suggestion that computation is not primary or stand alone when it comes to the human mind .
It’s ok to leave it at that
peace
Amazing how something as nuts as their imaginary friend having a personality disorder can be twisted into a positive feature. The presuppositionalist’s imaginary friend, who supposedly knows everything, still needs to talk to himself in order to have something to be conscious about, and thus have a reason to be logical, even though logic is not something a god who knows everything would need in the first place, since this imaginary friend has absolutely no problems to solve. What’s truly remarkable is that despite all they’re doing is try and hide one absurdity behind another, and another, and another, you guys sound so convinced.
Entropy,
C’mon, entropy, you have admit that it’s at least a little bit bloop.
What would an omniscient being use logic for anyway? There is no need for proof, he just knows.
Looks like NASA is getting ready to cook some math for the new interpretations of QM…
“General relativity is the theory of gravity on a large scale, while quantum mechanics, developed independently in the early 20th century, is the theory of the atom and subatomic particles on a very small scale. Theories based on quantum mechanics do not describe gravity, but rather the other three fundamental forces: electromagnetism (light), strong forces (binding atomic nuclei), and weak forces (seen in radioactivity).
Scientists have long hoped to meld these theories into one “theory of everything” to describe all aspects of nature. These unifying theories — such as quantum gravity or string theory — may involve the invocation of extra dimensions of space and also violations of Einstein’s special theory of relativity, such as the speed of light being the maximum attainable velocity for all objects.”
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1212einstein.html
What kind of math is going to be needed if Einstein’s math for special relativity should turn out to be wrong? Extra dimension of space? It could very well be just another term for “quantum crank”… 😜
I’ve also heard that Anton Zelinger is working on something quietly…
Here is an indication of that:
Quantum Entanglement Is Independent Of Space And Time
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26790
J-Mac,
Dude, even Einstein knew that special relativity was wrong, in the sense that its predictions are incorrect in situations where gravity is significant. That’s why he developed general relativity, after all.
keiths:
Neil:
True. What makes them silly is their content, along with the fact that you cling to them despite being unable to defend them against counterarguments.
True enough.
For your argument to stand you must believe here that the soul is identical to the mind. Is this what you believe?
Keep in mind (as it seems KN did not) that “my argument” was not that identity theory is true, but that it is popular. But in answer to your question, If “the soul” is not “the mind” then I have no idea what it is supposed to be. My guess is that a large majority of identity theorists would say the same thing.
ETA: If you are alluding to the trinitarian picture of “Me, Myself, and I” you should take it up with FMM, who, while a steadfast trinitarian, has insisted above that the mind and soul are identical. He’s your guy. Soul talk is all blabbidy to me.
Fair enough.
But I thought we were talking about what a physicalist believes, not what you believe. My point was that there is no contradiction in physicalism in the scenario you proposed.
Speaking of souls, Christianity, etc., etc., I went to the funeral of a neighbor at a Greek Orthodox church the other day. The music was Incredible, You really have to be able to sing/chant–and have mastery of a ton of ornaments–to be a cleric in one of those places. Three men–one young, one maybe 60, and one about 80–sang, together and separately, in unison and in harmony for a good hour. Lots of key changes too–although not much counterpoint. And wonderful acoustics: one of the three guys–the young one–was placed at a large chair at the side of the altar with maybe five mics pointed at him. The two older guys walked around the center, going in and out of this antechamber, sometimes bringing out highly ornamental books to sing from and gesticulating a lot. They sounded just as lovely, but must have been wearing their microphones since there were none visible in their area Those three men were even joined briefly by a fourth singer from the congregation, who walked up, said a few words, joined their chanting for a few minutes and then disappeared again.
The setting was also cool. Big, beautiful space. Weird paintings everywhere, lots of glittering doo-dads. Reminded me of some of the Cathedrals we’d visited in Spain. A bit of incense in the air. Bell ringing and gesturing, in addition to signs of the cross at least every 40 seconds. The whole thing was beautiful and eerie. I loved it–I was hoping I’d pass out.
One of the emcees took a break from singing to talk a bit about the orthodox xtian position on death being akin to sleeping. I didn’t pay much attention: I was thinking about how nice it would be to have my own funeral at that place –if they’d just take out all the Jesus talk. Maybe do the whole thing in Ubbi-Dubbi Greek or something. It was so other-worldly! Who wouldn’t want that?!?
BruceS,
Joined at the hip, but maybe separated at the neck? Don’t rule out a trinity theory!!
It’s actually the math (and physics!) in General Relativity and QM/QFT that needs to be revisited, most likely. SR math is high school algebra.
I don’t know enough to make any personal judgments about what types of math or physics are needed to integrate GR and QFT.
When it comes to this level of advanced math and physics, I rely on visualizations in popularizations. Brian Greene has a nice YT video on string theory.
Carlo Rovelli on Loop Quantum Gravity.
But don’t try to invent a new theory starting from the pretty pictures in these videos!
There is also the view that physics currently relies too much on new, beautiful, “natural” math, rather than just extending current but less beautiful theories. Sabine Hossenfelder has a book on that.
The Edge piece you link seems correct in the sense that whatever way we go, the GR notions of spacetime will no longer work.
ETA: correct “Hossenfelder”
I do not think that they are the same thing. To give an example, Someone might desire to smoke a cigarette. Through rational thinking they decide that smoking is harmful to their health and so they resist the temptation. This desire is a feeling they have in their soul. By not smoking the cigarette their thinking mind has overcome their soul’s desire.
Good to have theories, I guess. Even those that, to the extent they make any sense at all, obviously multiply entities pointlessly. It’s the road to bloopville! And that’s obviously where you want to be.
Happy trails!
This June article from NYT Stone got a bump at 3 Quarks today:
What Religion Gives Us that Science Can’t
I can post if people are paywalled out (and moderators don’t object).
ETA: Fix Link
BruceS,
I don’t think that link is right, Bruce.
These days, there is no need to invent thought experiments. The issue of Identity of Indiscernibles can be explored using real systems in Quantum Theory, eg as in
The Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles and Quantum Mechanics (Ladyman & Biga 2010) since certain quantum entities share all properties but are not numerically identical. ETA: At least, according to some interpretations.
Black gets a cite, of course. ETA: His spheres example is used as a starting point for some quantum situations that are explored.
Bonus for J-Mac if he is reading: entanglement is involved.
Fixed, I think. thanks.
I think these are valid concerns if digital computers are used to understand computation/information processing. This is the usual view in GOFAI, for example as expressed in Fodor’s view that computation is language like manipulation of abstract symbols which are, in turn, mental representations.
But digital computation is a poor way to explain how brains work. And taking mental representations as abstract symbols raises the issues of how such representations get their content, what makes that content correct, and how content can affect computation, since GOFAI sees computation as purely syntactical (that is, based on structure, not content).
But there are different approaches to computation and representation that address these issues. Piccinini has a recent paper Computation and Representation in Cognitive Neuroscience that provides his view of these approaches.
He defines computation as
Representation is not abstract but is structural (I think this is a modern way of expressing Sellar’s picture view that KN mentions). To be a structural representation,
In the paper, he then goes on to show how neural processes can be viewed as this type of computation and how structural representations solve the issues listed above.
here is a quote from the paper I linked
Quote:
The law of contradiction is not to be taken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking.
For this reason also the law of contradiction is not subsequent to God. If one should say that logic is dependent on God’s thinking, it is dependent only in the sense that it is the characteristic of God’s thinking. It is not subsequent temporally, for God is eternal and there was never a time when God existed without thinking logically. One must not suppose that God’s will existed as an inert substance before he willed to think.
As there is no temporal priority, so also there is no logical or analytical priority. Not only was Logic the beginning, but Logic was God.
end quote:
Logic is not something independent of God that he can choose to use or not if needed.
It’s simply the way he thinks. His mental character if you will.
peace
That is what I was trying to explore.
If I understand it correctly a physicalist believes that by necessity two physically identical brains will produce two different minds and at the same time holds that the mind is entirely entailed by the physical make up of the brain.
This seems to be a bare contradiction. What am I missing?
peace
OK
How does a physicalist view the relationship between the mind and the self?
Is his mind different than his self?
peace
I’m not seeing any evidence of a paywall for that link.
My understanding of the history is that Putnam’s early work on Multiple Realizability killed mind-brain identity in the view of most philosophers working in the field. But it’s made a come back recently with many saying MR is a philosoher’s issue that does not arise in science.
Right now, both Prinz style neurofunctionalism (close to identity theory) and Dennett’s illusionism make the most sense to me as attempts to explain phenomenality In The Philsophy of Daniel Dennett there are papers by Prinz and by Clark (extending illusionism) where they each try to show that their approaches are what Dennett should believe in light of his past work.
I think it kicks in after you view ten articles or so
Yes. But it’s not the same issue as mind and personal identity.
What contradiction? Could you be more explicit? I don’t see any contradiction.
Thanks for all that! I’ll make sure to include that Piccinini in my article on picturing,
I often hit a paywall with Springer. But I think they may have excluded this article from their paywall.
fifth:
Bruce:
Fifth still thinks that two physically identical brains must, according to physicalism, produce a single mind. Where he gets that bizarre belief, I don’t know.
Fifth,
This isn’t difficult. Two brains can (in principle) be physically identical without being numerically identical. If the brains aren’t numerically identical, why would you assume that the associated minds must be?
And in any case, the minds will rapidly diverge, since the brains are receiving disparate inputs from the environment.
Again, the problem is not with physicalism. You’re just confused.
My disagreement with KN would apply just as well to that Piccinini article.
I don’t have a problem with his definition of “computation”, except that “certain degrees of freedom” seems hopelessly vague.
When it boils down, Piccinini is talking about homomorphisms between neural states and states of the world. But those states of the world are presumably what KN refers to as empirical states. And those are precisely what I am say are human artifacts. And if they are human artifacts, then you cannot just use them in your arguments and theories without giving a hint as to where they come from.
OK can you explain the difference between the mind and the self as far as a physicalist is concerned.
Can one individual person have two minds for instance?
peace
That is like complementing NAZI Germany because the trains all ran on time.
peace
It is Italians who were considered not very efficient with timetables, and the fascist dictator, Mussolini, who is damned with faint praise in getting the trains to run on time. Pre-Nazi Germany had no such reputation for inefficiency.
I agree about “human artifacts”. I’m sure the brain generally engages in modelling exercises.
I agree about “human artifacts”. I’m sure the brain generally engages in modelling exercises.
Cool, thanks! You are an absolute fount of material, Bruce!!
Not actually that much, really.
I’m pretty sure that I have occasionally answered a question with “I’m of two minds about that”.
You do realize things like the music and the setting are mostly a direct result of the “Jesus talk”.
You would not have the former with out the latter.
peace
I’d have you without the Jesus talk too. But alas….
If it weren’t for our corpus callosum, that would be true. 🙂
😉
I do enjoy talking to you walto.
Sometimes I think you take things a bit too personal and at times you are pretentious and condescending.
That is OK, at times I’m preachy and I tend to look for the underlying premise rather than engaging with the argument as presented.
peace
But the question is are you being humorously metaphorical or literal?
peace
peace
Oops, maybe I screwed this up — it was the NYT article I was referring to. The one about science not replacing religion.
Just to be clear — I have not attempted to understand that article. I did have a rough idea about the quantum issues with the principle and just did a search for something that looked germane.
Don’t know about Neil.
But here is an interesting TED talk about the divided brain by neuroscientist Iain McGilchrist
I’d prefer that if you have an argument to make, you just make it. If it makes sense for what you want to argue, for premises you start can with Wiki for the philosophical or psychology definitions of self and mind– probably best to use psychology for this type of argument about science/physicalism for the definitions you want.
I don’t understand what “an individual having two minds” has to do with the question. I understand you are postulating two human animals each with their own separate brains which are identical (or at least their brains are). AFAIK, we are not talking about old Steve Martin movies.
ETA: fix link. Yes, again.