My argument is mainly that you place almost all of the activities of the mind
(which IMHO=soul=psyche) into the realm of the spirit. I do agree that the
human brain is designed to act as an "antenna", to use your term, to allow our
spirits (as well as God's Spirit) to interact with (interface with?) our
biological aspects. I just believe that the mind=soul=psyche *originates* in
the biology of the brain (a biology that incorporates both genetic and
environmental/experiential elements, BTW--so I'm not a strict determinist).
I haven't got anymore evidence that you do to support my model--I cheerfully
admit that it is speculation that seems consistent with both my view of
Scripture and my view of neuroscience.
> > I have to agree that with respect to the spiritual, the human brain IS a
> > kind of
> > antenna--after all, without it how could we hear from God, consider Him, or
> > respond to Him? But I disagree with the dualism that you seem to be
> > proposing
> > where *all* thoughts and feelings originate in the spirit. What is left
> > for the
> > brain to do in your model, if all thought processes and feeling originate
> > externally? A major problem I have with your model, at least as you
> > describe it
> > so far, is that I believe it lends itself to various types of New Ageish
> > dualisms in which the "mind" is somewhere "out there"--separate and
> > dissociable from the body/brain, generating "energy fields" and such.
>
> I will turn the question around to you - what is left for the spirit
> to do if all thought processes and feelings originate in the body?
Communicate with God, continually cry "Abba, Father!", endow us with an eternal
nature, speak to and tweak the mind to consider things beyond the merely
sensory...I guess that's how I speculate about it. I don't believe that biology
is sufficient to draw our thoughts to God. For example, I think that animals
may be said to have *souls*, at least to a limited extent (and some more than
others...) but I'm fairly certain based on Scripture that none have
*spirits*--that Image of God unique to humankind.
> If the brain does all the thinking, what happens at death? Do our
> memories and thoughts get left behind after we die? Of course not,
> we keep our memories (Luke 16:25) and soul and spirit into the next
> life, whether in Heaven or in Hell. But, since we have a NEW body,
> will God create the old memories in the new body, assuming the body
> maintains the memories? This is a philosophical debate.
It is indeed, but I would suggest that the soul/mind and all its memories is
recreated as will be the resurrection body--that is, it will be us as we should
be, not as we now are (Thank God!). From this, it is also seems reasonable to
speculate that not all of our personality, thoughts, feelings and memories will
"make it" through this transition--at least I hope not!!! I'm sure none of you
have the flaws I have, but I sure don't want to be carrying some of those things
on for eternity!!! So for now, I'll stick to the idea that thoughts, emotions,
and memories are produced by and, for the time being, dependent on the intact
functioning of the biological brain.
>
> > Your model doesn't mention the biblical concept of "soul", which I
> > think of as being equivalent to mind or psyche, and *maybe* to the
> > biblical "heart". Perhaps you lump all these references in under
> > "spirit", but I think that that is incorrect. I've been
> > pondering this for some time now, and still wouldn't say I've
> > come up with anything definitive, but I'm inclined to the
> > tripartite Body/Soul/Spirit concept, with Soul being those
> > mental processes and functions that the brain produces. (And
> > after 6 years in this program I'd really have to admit that I
> > think that that accounts for almost *all* mental
> > functions--certainly cognition and emotions).
>
> I follow the tri-une nature of humanity - that we have a body, a soul
> and a spirit, but are one person. However, even Paul refers to the
> soul and the spirit of a person under the generic context of spirit
> (1 Corin 7:34). I have, by the way, listened to my soul talk and
> debate inside. Was that of the body or of the spirit? I don't know.
OK--well, we're not so far apart...but how would *you* distinguish the soul from
the spirit, according to your model? You (like many other Christians I chat
with) seem to consider them nearly one and the same.
I think that confusion about the difference between soul/mind/psyche and spirit
contributes to our resistance to consider our precious human attributes as
possibly having origins that originate in biology.
(I could also editorialize some about how Christians treat the issue of mental
illness--as though they are diseases of *spiritual* origin, rather than of
biological origin! I think that an understanding of the mind as separate from
the spirit could lead to a more compassionate understanding of these
conditions.)
> > Finally, one comment about Star Trek--which I love, at least until
> > Beverly starts waving her "magic sensor wand" and measuring
> > "neurotransmitter levels". PLEASE don't judge what real scientists
> > believe or don't believe about the brain based on treatments of the
> > subject in the popular culture--unless you're willing to think that
> > treatments of *Christianity* in those same popular media also
> > always represent the true beliefs and feelings of real Christians!
>
> Of course not! When I see the 3 Stooges playing the role of
> plumbers I don't judge plumbers by their actions. Unfortunately, too
> many of us scientists and engineers do not have the glamorous life
> shown on Star Trek (when did you ever see Mr. Scott filling out
> requisition forms?)
Or Dr. Crusher writing a "Federation Institutes of Health" grant? Or anyone
(except a Ferengi, anyhow) worrying much about money at all!? ;-)
> The item I was referring to in Star Trek is the transporter system.
[...]
> This is where I draw the inference of a purely physical
> basis of life and personality: the show defines a person has being
> the sum total of their bio-chemical/bio-physical processes.
OTOH (and let's not pursue this little digression any further unless it's in the
rec.arts.startrek USENET hierarchy!) there's enough of a New Agey bent to some
of the show that you could reconcile it equally well with something like your
"antenna model". That is, the transporter merely reconstructs the appropriately
tuned antenna, while the unique nonmaterial spirit is "beamed along" in the
stream and "resumes broadcasting" when the antenna is reconstructed. My point
in belaboring this is, as least as it's relevant to this discussion, that the
popular culture's idea of mind, soul, body, and brain is NOT *necessarily* one
that reduces to the "purely physical".
[...]
> > *BTW--I don't believe in an *eternal* soul. I believe God
> > foreknows us, but i don't believe that entails pre-existance--and
> > I don't know of any Scripture that teaches that human souls have an
> > existance prior to the womb. (And I'm not going to *touch* the
> > question of "just *when* in the womb?"!!!)
>
> Why should we assume God "en-souls" the body?
I didn't assume that, or even say that...I merely said we can't say when the
soul begins. Is it, as you imply, at conception? Is there a "unique begetting"
of a child's spirit from those of its parents? Or is there a unique and
individual creative act for each person's spirit? Is the soul's beginning
dependent on there being enough brain to produce it? I can't say, nor do I know
of anyone down here who can say.
> The example from
> nature is that life originates and grows. I believe when the
> physical body begins, the soul (and spirit) begins and must grow.
> The spirit and the soul of the child is a unique conjunction and a
> unique begetting from the spirits and the souls of the parents, just
> like the body of the child is unique conjunction of the bodies of the
> parents. Of course, this would mean that life begins at conception
> and that abortion would be sinful at any point.
And my only point about the timing (and not wanting to touch it!) was that
whether your last sentence is true or not is a matter of theology, not biology.
Scott "how many heresies have I committed today, Lord?" Oakman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Oakman Graduate Program in Neuroscience
University of Minnesota MD/PhD Program
oakma001@maroon.tc.umn.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man wonders over the restless sea, the flowing water, the sight of sky,
and forgets that of all wonders man himself is the most wonderful.
--Augustine of Hippo