Does Christian faith require belief in brainless minds?

[Copernicus]

Perhaps the brain is like the gateway from the physical to the non-physical. We don't need physical brains to think, but we do need them to send signals to move the rest of what constitutes our physical bodies. The mind (thought) is perception, the brain is what responds to that perception.

Runewolf, the problem I see with that idea is that we have different states of consciousness that correspond to different conditions of the brain. If the brain were a mere conduit between the nonphysical and the physical, then why would we ever lose consciousness or self-awareness when the condition of the brain changed? The non-physical part of ourselves should still be operative, yet it has the appearance of not operating when we, say, go into a deep sleep or undergo general anesthesia. It seems that your scenario would have us feel conscious but paralyzed--cut off from the body.

How do the individual cells in a persons body know what to do with themselves? Perhaps they also "perceive" things in some way or another. It seems that all energy has some form of "thought" or "consciousness" that makes it change and do things. I wonder if to a single cell in our body, we are like God.

Individual cells are not conscious. They have no nervous system. Not all life forms have nervous systems--only those life forms that move. Plants, for example, have no nervous system, because they do not move. The overall function of a brain is to act as a guidance system--to keep away from danger and move towards food.

 

[Rin]

If mind-body dualism is necessary to Christianity then Christianity is at war with rationality and only one will survive (not sure which). I think its more likely that mind-body dualism is not necessary to Christianity, just as the divine right of kings or the Pope was not necessary to Christianity, and Christianity will evolve to bring itself inline with what rationality discovers for us. This seems to be what it has done in the past.

 

[rocketman]

Copernicus, I am sorry to hear about the misfortunes you and your parents have had to endure.

I don't think your argument is particularly strong at this point in the history of brain knowledge. I don't think the physical mind should be confused with the idea of a soul at all, and I think most religions generally make a reasonable dstinction between the two.

Speculation: It may be that the mind does not do the believing, but rather makes known to the 'self' what may be believed and then 'feels' what has been believed. I think the idea behind the 'soul' concept is more of an essence or force that could take over other interfaces if necessary. I don't think it would remember anything from before, but the quality of it's character, molded and imprinted over time by previous experience, might tend to certain predictable decisions, providing the interface is functioning normally.

Back in the testable world: A damaged interface does not yet tell us anything new about what may or may not be at the other end. For instance, most people use the term "I wasn't myself" when drugs and damage affect their brain; is it because the brain-bits make them who they are, or is it because an external 'self' was recieving static via the broken bits? When people say 'myself' they generally don't mean their body, they mean their existence as a conscious being. The sense of self warrants investigation and should not be dismissed on sight. So, you are right to say there is no evidence of a soul, but on the technical front we really need to know exactly how and why the brain works as it does before we can rule anything in or out from a scientific point of view.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Runewolf, the problem I see with that idea is that we have different states of consciousness that correspond to different conditions of the brain. If the brain were a mere conduit between the nonphysical and the physical, then why would we ever lose consciousness or self-awareness when the condition of the brain changed? The non-physical part of ourselves should still be operative, yet it has the appearance of not operating when we, say, go into a deep sleep or undergo general anesthesia. It seems that your scenario would have us feel conscious but paralyzed--cut off from the body.



Individual cells are not conscious. They have no nervous system. Not all life forms have nervous systems--only those life forms that move. Plants, for example, have no nervous system, because they do not move. The overall function of a brain is to act as a guidance system--to keep away from danger and move towards food.

Say if we lost consciousness and got knocked out. Or even when we are asleep, perhaps that consciousness is able to leave our bodies. This would be like what some would call astral-planing. Ever experience sleep paralysis?

Just because something does not have a nervous system does not mean that it is not moving "animate" energy. All energy moves and vibrates. Everything has some form of consciousness or "spirit".

 

[Ozzie]

OK, thanks. Since I don't have a clear grasp of what you were trying to say, I'm afraid that I can't give a coherent response. The concept of "cognition" itself is vague. We use it to define a whole collection of cognitive functions that tend to be associated with physical structures in the brain. Damage to the brain can cause complete loss of different kinds of mental function. Younger brains, having more neurons, appear able to recover from injuries by "wiring around" the damaged areas.

Lets try a different tact. ID is hardly premised on a brainless mind. It might be premised on a blind, non-cognisant creator though. Creation itself is easy to describe that way moving from nothing to the complex.

 

[Copernicus]

Say if we lost consciousness and got knocked out. Or even when we are asleep, perhaps that consciousness is able to leave our bodies. This would be like what some would call astral-planing. Ever experience sleep paralysis?

What is consciousness without memory? Where would the disembodied consciousness get its memories from? How would it remember anything at all without a hippocampus? The physical brain of the person knocked out? Either the mind interacts with the physical brain or it doesn't. The conundrum here has to do with the apparent reliance that a mind has on physical structures in the brain to perform any cognitive function at all. Destroy parts of the hippocampus, and memories are gone forever. Yet, according to Christian doctrine, those memories--the entire personality of the individual as well--must be able to survive death in order to be "saved". Is that not the case?

Just because something does not have a nervous system does not mean that it is not moving "animate" energy. All energy moves and vibrates. Everything has some form of consciousness or "spirit".

Yet, we know that it is the behavior of the central nervous system that determines whether we ourselves experience consciousness. Is there any reason to think that a single cell is any more "conscious" than a rock? What kind of experiences would it have to think about?

 

[Copernicus]

Copernicus, I am sorry to hear about the misfortunes you and your parents have had to endure.

Thank you, rocket. Painful as those memories are, they taught me a lot about the nature of the mind at a gut level. My parents, at those periods of crisis in their lives, were entirely different people from what they were throughout most of their lives. My father became like a child when he initially woke up out of the coma. My mother suffered many delusions, at times forgetting who I was. Having lived her whole life as a devout Episcopalian, she came to falsely remember a childhood in which she had been a Methodist who converted into Episcopalianism. The mind is a very fragile thing. And that got me to wondering just what Christians believe is preserved from life after they die.

I don't think your argument is particularly strong at this point in the history of brain knowledge. I don't think the physical mind should be confused with the idea of a soul at all, and I think most religions generally make a reasonable dstinction between the two.

Minds are not physical objects. Brains are. Our feelings, perceptions, and thoughts may have correlates with brain activity, but they should not be confused with low level physical behavior in a brain. Nowadays, I think, one would characterize a mind as an emergent phenomenon of brain activity. Stop the brain activity, and the phenomenon ceases to exist. If there is a distinction between a mind and a soul, tell me what you think the difference is. Let me warn you that I've had this discussion with quite a few Christians in the past, and I have yet to meet one that seems to have a clear idea of what properties a soul might possess that a mind does not. For example, consider my reply to your speculation:

Speculation: It may be that the mind does not do the believing, but rather makes known to the 'self' what may be believed and then 'feels' what has been believed. I think the idea behind the 'soul' concept is more of an essence or force that could take over other interfaces if necessary. I don't think it would remember anything from before, but the quality of it's character, molded and imprinted over time by previous experience, might tend to certain predictable decisions, providing the interface is functioning normally.

But the problem here is in your description of a 'soul' that is capable of the very same mental functions that a mind has--abilities to believe, plan, control, evaluate, etc. You can't have a 'ghost' in the machine unless the 'ghost' actually has the very cognitive functions that the machinery implements. That is the problem here. Damage a brain (say with too much alcohol), and you damage one's judgment. We do things drunk that we would never do sober.

Back in the testable world: A damaged interface does not yet tell us anything new about what may or may not be at the other end. For instance, most people use the term "I wasn't myself" when drugs and damage affect their brain; is it because the brain-bits make them who they are, or is it because an external 'self' was recieving static via the broken bits? When people say 'myself' they generally don't mean their body, they mean their existence as a conscious being. The sense of self warrants investigation and should not be dismissed on sight. So, you are right to say there is no evidence of a soul, but on the technical front we really need to know exactly how and why the brain works as it does before we can rule anything in or out from a scientific point of view.

True, and neither of us are brain scientists. I am, at best, a dilettante when it comes down to exactly how the brain works. I know enough to sound like I know more than I really do. But I do have expert knowledge in some areas, e.g. linguistic functionality. (I am a linguist and AI researcher.) In building robots nowadays, we find ourselves increasingly trying to replicate the very same functionality that a human mind has, including especially self-awareness. The reason for that is that machines that move need to coordinate a great deal of information about their surroundings from sensory input. They need to plan where to move and how to interact with objects in their environment. They need to interact with other intelligent beings. And they need to be aware of their own health or bodily condition. We cannot yet create satisfactory artifical intelligence and may never achieve that goal. Nevertheless, we can clearly identify many of the components that go into cognition. In principle, I believe that we could build intelligent, sentient machines. I just don't think that we have the time or patience to do as good a job as common descent via modification has with us.

 

[Masourga]

Firstly, what is the brain besides a vessel to contain energy? The brain itself IS energy. Second, what is the mind or consciousness that is held within that brain besides another form of energy? This energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only change form.

This is NOT true at all. The brain uses energy to transmit information and signals to itself and the rest of the body. Actual, physical changes to synapse and cells (brought about by the transmission and effects of the energy) are what hold long-term memory. Not just energy. Not by a long shot. Which is why physical damage can have a lasting impact on brain function and memory.

You're right that the energy that the brain uses cannot be created or destroyed. But neither can any energy in the universe. It is only re-apportioned. But energy is NOT consciousness. Nor does "energy" have a memory. Would you say that your vacuum-cleaner will be beside you somewhere in the universe once you become a part of it (i.e. "pass on"), simply because it, at one point, had energy coursing through it? Of course not.

 

[Copernicus]

I agree with Masourga's reply to Runewolf. Well said.

 

[Copernicus]

Lets try a different tact. ID is hardly premised on a brainless mind. It might be premised on a blind, non-cognisant creator though. Creation itself is easy to describe that way moving from nothing to the complex.

Ozzie, I don't buy the claim that creation starts from nothing. Perhaps it is just order emerging from the chaos of what went before. Maybe the concept of time needs ordered processes--cycles--in order to make any sense at all. The problem with the idea of a creator is that the paradox of infinite regression does not go away. Where did the creator come from? If one is going to posit something that just always was, it seems unlikely to me that that thing would be an intelligent being with the knowledge and ability to plan a universe. Such abilities make no sense independently of a being that operates in its own causal reality, which would then make it subject to the paradox of infinite causal regression. It strikes me as a bit more sensible to say that the thing created by the proposed being--physical reality--just always existed.

 

[logician]

In my life, I have witnessed the changes in cognition--consciousness, awareness, moods, emotions, memory, reasoning ability, etc.--that can occur with brain damage. I saw its effects in my father after he came out of a coma after an automobile accident, and I saw it in my mother as she gradually succumbed to minor strokes and aging factors that damaged her brain. These experiences and others have led me to recognize the intimate relationship between the condition of a physical brain and mental cognition. Indeed, there is no mental function that seems unaffected by the physical condition of a brain.

Now the brain-body connection has religious implications. Virtually every religion on Earth assumes that the mind or spirit can exist independently of the physical body. Belief in immaterial ghosts, spirits, and demons, seems to flourish in just about every culture. In traditional Christian culture, the soul is somehow supposed to survive death and come to reside in heaven, hell, purgatory or some spiritual realm where non-physical beings can exist. God himself is thought not to have a physical brain (except perhaps among Mormons). So the idea of a mind that can reason, remember things, feel emotions, etc., is theoretically possible even without a brain. The ability of the mind to survive death seems fundamental to Christian doctrine, as it is to so many non-Christian doctrines.

Here is my claim: if it is true that a human mind requires a physical brain in order to exist, then Christianity is probably a false religion. Minds must be able to survive death in order for Christian doctrine to make sense. Do you agree? If not, then what is meant by "everlasting life"?

Now, a consequence of this theory is that all evidence that suggests a mind cannot exist independently of a physical brain is evidence against Christianity (and other religions that have a brainless mind requirement). Lack of evidence that minds can exist independently of physical brains is further lack of evidence that the Christian faith is a reasonable belief system.

To my knowledge, the only evidence that we have for minds existing indpendently of human brains is a report of either an out-of-body (OOB) experience or near-death-experience (NDE), but neither of these types of experience has been shown to be compelling evidence because they appear to be related to the cutoff of oxygen to a living brain that subsequently recovers.

I agree basically, there never has been one iota of evidence that there is anything left capable of "thinking" after the body and brain dies. Also, according to the old Xian adage, we show be known as we are known, but what does that mean - we are completely differnent people say from the time we are children than we are when we are teens, middle age, grown up, and elderly, it doesn't really make sense. But, just nitpicking here.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Sorry, I thought this was a religious forum. I was just explaining my point of view from a "spiritual" perspective. As a follower of animism and shamanism, I see all energy (everything that exists) as "spirit". To me, everything that exists is "animate" and has "living spirit energy". All is consciousness. But I am no scientist, so feel free to tell me that I am wrong. Not everything is learned reading books or going to school. Some things you have to learn for yourself. Not everything is "scientific". At least not yet....

 

[Copernicus]

I agree basically, there never has been one iota of evidence that there is anything left capable of "thinking" after the body and brain dies. Also, according to the old Xian adage, we show be known as we are known, but what does that mean - we are completely differnent people say from the time we are children than we are when we are teens, middle age, grown up, and elderly, it doesn't really make sense. But, just nitpicking here.

I don't see this as nitpicking. We are different people at different times of our lives, and this fact has significance for those who think that survival of death is merely receiving a new physical body as a repository for the self. There is no "self" to be transferred. At best, one can only get a clone--a copy of the original. The original would still die. In fact, if God's salvation worked that way, he could produce four copies of the original. All of the four would have the illusion of being the person that passed away, but they would perceive themselves as different beings from the three sister clones and commence to have different lives. In a sense, the "self" is an illusion of identity. Identical twins are essentially the same physical being to start with, but they become separate individuals in the womb. Siamese twins occur when the separation is not complete. Preservation-through-resurrection would just be creating an adult twin of the person who died.

 

[Copernicus]

Sorry, I thought this was a religious forum. I was just explaining my point of view from a "spiritual" perspective. As a follower of animism and shamanism, I see all energy (everything that exists) as "spirit". To me, everything that exists is "animate" and has "living spirit energy". All is consciousness. But I am no scientist, so feel free to tell me that I am wrong. Not everything is learned reading books or going to school. Some things you have to learn for yourself. Not everything is "scientific". At least not yet....

Runewolf, I don't mean to be picky, but it is a religious debate forum. Your views are respected, but I think that we are allowed to criticize your defense of them. For example, I agree with your point that not everything is learned reading books or going to school. It is absolutely true that some things--really all things--you learn for yourself. Whether or not everything is "scientific"...we probably disagree on the extent to which that is true. Science is a powerful method of coming to know the nature of our reality. For me, the question of God's existence is subject to empirical investigation.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Runewolf, I don't mean to be picky, but it is a religious debate forum. Your views are respected, but I think that we are allowed to criticize your defense of them. For example, I agree with your point that not everything is learned reading books or going to school. It is absolutely true that some things--really all things--you learn for yourself. Whether or not everything is "scientific"...we probably disagree on the extent to which that is true. Science is a powerful method of coming to know the nature of our reality. For me, the question of God's existence is subject to empirical investigation.

As well I respect you're views, and your critizism is welcome. I don't actually believe in God. I worship existence. I can only believe in which truly exists. Perhaps we just have different ideas about what exists and what doesn't exist.

You are absolutely right. It is a debate forum. Think I just lost my "mind" there for a minute. I am non-religious, but I do believe in the spirit world. I don't think it is as "supernatural" as it seems.

 

[Reverend Rick]

:ignore:

 

[Copernicus]

You are absolutely right. It is a debate forum. Think I just lost my "mind" there for a minute. I am non-religious, but I do believe in the spirit world. I don't think it is as "supernatural" as it seems.

Fair enough. The only problem I have with animism is that it seems to attribute properties to life forms and even non-life forms that one would only expect to find in beings that are motile and therefore in need of all the cognitive equipment to survive. Brains evolved minds for a good reason, and it is easy to see why natural selection might ultimately produce beings such as ourselves. We can make plans far into the future, compared to less intelligent competitors.

There is no apparent reason for sessile life forms such as plants to evolve self-awareness. I certainly don't think that it's worth trying to stimulate plant growth by playing music and talking to them, although I understand the urge we have to personify everything in our environment. In the end, I think that animism, like anthropomorphism, are inspired by our method of understanding. We come to understand new concepts by forming chains of associations with past experiences. What do we know most about? Our selves. Therefore, it is common for us to impute human-like properties to just about everything. Analogy is a fundamental property of human cognition. No wonder that gods, for most people, are seen as the ground being of reality. They are versions of us.

 

[rocketman]

Minds are not physical objects. Brains are.

But this is also central to my objection to assertions that we can know for sure that we don't have a soul. We do not yet have a solid grasp of the mind except to say that no brain = no mind. None of which excludes a soul, unless one demands a soul to also be the mind. There are still so many questions. I'm not offering scientific proof for or against the soul, I'm saying that we should not attempt either at this stage. (Philosophical proofs are much more fun!) While I tend to follow the neurophysiologist Eccles view that we must have something like a soul, I don't think we are able to make a truly convincing case either way to anyone but ourselves at this point.

If there is a distinction between a mind and a soul, tell me what you think the difference is. ..... But the problem here is in your description of a 'soul' that is capable of the very same mental functions that a mind has--abilities to believe, plan, control, evaluate, etc.

Well, it was purely speculation, but no, I'm not saying the soul would double up on mind functions. I suggest something deeper, something more primal in force, something that reacts to input but which must have inputs shaped and processed and converted for it, recieving from the mind and returning commands to the mind but in base notions only. I think character is born at some hidden base level, not as a result of any higher arrangement of circutry. For example, when people say "I just know deep down that it's right", that to me may be tentatively classed as an attempt by the mind to interpret the strainings of something at a mysteriously deeper level, maybe a soul. But of-course I am speculating.

The general point I want to make here is that with current technology a soul-less body where the mind does everything would be hard to distinguish from soul-full body, in that a soul need not understand whether there is awakening, or sleeping, or old age, or young age, or memories: all such fripperies can be handled by the mind, the soul has more important things to support, such as the very essence of the sense of self, the good or bad nature of the self, the sheer willingness or determination that sometimes boils up from deep within us, and so on. I'm glad you mentioned alcohol, for it does seem to change our character by changing our brain, but I would like to point out that for some it changes their character not at all. I believe that if there is a soul then whatever character tendencies are buried deep within it will simply be borne out in available ways by the mind, depending on what chemical pathways are open to it's execution. I also think the potential of a soul would amount to being able to interface with something far more complex than our brain, if ever there will be such a thing, ie: the brain can limit a soul, but not vice-versa. But I ramble.....

Which leads me back to the OP. You ask if Christian faith requires belief in brainless minds. Ignoring the many varaitions and interpretaions of beliefs amongst Christians, I would argue that the answer can possibly be 'no'; but that rather the situation may be more one of accepting 'mindless' souls, for want of a better term. I'm loath to quote scripture but indulge me: Jesus said "He who has an ear, let him hear" - figure of speech or not, the situation for Christians is currently based on receiving 'words' and then believing them. This clearly relies on physical input, and yet in Matt10:28 Jesus arguably claims the soul and body are seperate, so I think the Christian soul would have to be of the kind I have speculated. It would not in and of itself understand the words, but it would comprehend the base 'concepts', as interpreted by the mind, and any resultant responsive urges coming the other way would be shaped and even partially judged by the mind at more practicable levels. That's the 'input' and 'ouput' sides in action, and I think the assertion from Galations that Gods soul(spirit) can produce effects in the physical realm is a good example of the 'output' side also, for those who believe such things.

We cannot yet create satisfactory artifical intelligence and may never achieve that goal. Nevertheless, we can clearly identify many of the components that go into cognition. In principle, I believe that we could build intelligent, sentient machines. I just don't think that we have the time or patience to do as good a job as common descent via modification has with us.

By moving to this subject you demonstrate a good understanding of the situation Copernicus. My own understanding is that we know so little about the mind-brain situation that the door of possibility of having a soul is still wide open, and although I think the no-soul argument is relatively weak, the thrust is nevertheless quite logical and reasonable, possibly more so than mine.

As for whether or not we will ever work it out, I must confess after having worked in fields related to AI myself, that I'm something of a New Mysterian.

 

[Runewolf1973]

There is no convincing those who are already "convinced".
The truth is out there somewhere. It exists. Whatever IT is.
Perhaps we are just like flies banging our heads on a window. Instinct tells us something is on the other side, but we just can't quite tell exactly what it is. Something is definitely on the other side though. We have the choice to either fly off and find some other way around the window, or just keep banging our heads on it and eventually dying from exhaustion. But that's just another perspective.

 

[Luminous]

I'm Sorry, I thought this was a religious forum.

I know its weird, i thought agodist atheism wasn't a religion. I was expecting to have my fun with the religulous type. but it seams that either there ain't that many or you guys have chased them away.

Oh wait, nevermind, agodist atheists are religulous.
Is that not why they flock here?