In The Tradition of Aquinas. Proof for the Existence of An immaterial Soul

[Anonymous_1]

First, I want to thank Saint Thomas Aquinas for his contributions to our pursuit and understanding of truth. Saint Thomas, please pray for us!

My philosophy teacher was a retired physicist who insisted we based our philosophical arguments on good, solid, scientific fact. He told us we must understand how the world works before we attempt to explain why it works that way. Get a degree in a hard science he told us, then our philosophy will not be useless; for good information and good thinking lead to good conclusions. With that said I present to you PROOF ala Thomas for the necessity and existence of an immaterial soul. Here are two arguments. The first argument is an argument from causation. The second an argument of necessity and is proposed in the form of a dilema.


The brain is considered by the vast majority to be the organ responsible for thought, reason, deliberation, choice, etc. As a result of scientific inquiry it is now possible to explain at least to some degree how the mind works. It has been discovered that the body is an intimate conglomerate of biochemical and electrical processes. The mind functions by electrical neural impulses and biochemical relays. Vast networks consisting of neurons, axons, terminals and dendrites carry these biochemical and electrical signals throughout the body which relays these messages to the body by means of nerves, hormones and other chemicals. It appears to many that the mind-body problem has been settled once and for all. The processes of the mind, once thought to be only possible by immaterial substance, have been proven to be the result of extraordinarily complex anatomical and physiological processes. Nevertheless these processes are strictly material.

I do not believe this solution to be adequate. When we think, neurons carry electrical impulses which stimulate the release of neurotransmitters which travel across the synaptic cleft to the receptor sites of another neuron initiating or inhibiting another electrical impulse. This complex series of bioelectrical events can be likened to a relay team passing the baton, one to another, until reaching their ultimate goal. The question that I pose is who blows the whistle? Perhaps the brains workings are also analogous to billiards with a cue striking a ball thus transferring its kinetic energy which causes the ball to move indefinitely until it loses its kinetic energy or finds its way to a pocket. The same question arises, who is it that strikes the cue? Now back to the issue at hand, if a particular thought process can be explained in light of neurological relays then what is it that causes the first neuron in the chain to fire? Sometimes I imagine it is a result of external stimulation. However I believe that sometimes it happens as a result of choice.

Case and point: I wanted to try to address this issue of the mind and so I sat down to think hard. I caused myself to think about this issue. Now how can such a thing be? How can a thing cause itself? How can I (my brain) be the source of the cause unless I am in some way distinct from my brain? I propose that in such a instance (this particular instance of my deliberate reason) and in many others it is the will of the person which causes the neural chain-of-events. It is my will that blows the whistle and it is my will which strikes the cue.

Furthermore I propose that either our will follows from a part of us that is immaterial or we have no will at all. But because we have a will it necessarily follows that part of us is immaterial. It is possible to present this dilemma because if our minds can work only by chemical reactions and physical laws, which are beyond our desire and control, then it is not possible that we are free. If we are not free then a “will” is impossible.




Let the flames fly and the criticisms abound. However, if these arguments be valid I pray that they may cause many to consider the possibility that we are a union of the physical and the meta physical. And that the source of our being is found in God the Creator.

[Anonymous_1]

Hmm. Was hoping some people would find this at least interesting and would leave any comments or criticisms.

[HailMary]

No, I find this very interesting.

[JimG]

Originally Posted by Anonymous_1

I propose that in such a instance (this particular instance of my deliberate reason) and in many others it is the will of the person which causes the neural chain-of-events. It is my will that blows the whistle and it is my will which strikes the cue.

I pretty much agree with your line of thought. But I would draw the traditional, and Thomistic, distinction between mind and will. In this case it is perhaps your mind (in the immaterial sense) initiating the neuronal series of events, your will also being involved by decided what you want to hink about. One might also say that your mind forms the concepts (immaterially) before they are translated into neuronal action.

I would also note that philosophy is prior to physicis. The natural scientist, to begin with, must begin by accepting two philosophical axioms: "I am." and "I can know."

[Nita]

Always think it's sad when "learned" philosophers end up forgetting the very important "common sense"!

Common sense for me poses some very pertinent questions regarding your topic. How does material being alone know what topic to cause the brain to think about? (Especially when no external physical stimuli.) How does it keep it on track? Or if it "goes off track" why would it (thought in mind) even consider/declare it as off track if it's only the natural/correct result of physcial causes? How does a chemical process in a physical brain come up with a new, previously unheard of, creative idea? Or do materialist philosophers hold that immaterial ideas are enclosed in some way in the physical material of brain cells? etc. etc. etc. The questions could go on and on for me.

Like Hail Mary, I also find the topic interesting. Hope more will comment.

Nita

[Aramis]

The fundamental question of mind:

Does mind arise from thought, or thought from mind?

[Nita]

Originally Posted by Aramis

The fundamental question of mind:

Does mind arise from thought, or thought from mind?

Aramis,

What's a Ruthenianized Roman?

Nita

[Aramis]

I was born in the Roman Catholic Church, raised in the Roman and Dominican Rites, but then in adulthood discovered the Ruthenian Catholic Church, which is in union with and Subject to Rome, but is not Roman Catholic.

While still nominally Roman (I've not done the paperwork needed to transfer formally from one to the other), I have become affected strongly by Ruthenian Catholic Byzantine Ritual & Traditional elements.

As to the soul, the Ruthenian influence make me say "The sould is a holy mystery. God gave it to us, and we must take care of it. Worrying about when it came, how it interfaces, and why it's there are pointless."

[JimG]

Originally Posted by Aramis

The fundamental question of mind:

Does mind arise from thought, or thought from mind?

The mind,or intellect, is that faculty of the human soul by which we know. The mind knows by producing ideas, or thoughts, which though immaterial, are abstracted from the sensory input from the body.

[Anonymous_1]

Originally Posted by JimG

I would also note that philosophy is prior to physicis. The natural scientist, to begin with, must begin by accepting two philosophical axioms: "I am." and "I can know."

and just as there are fundamental truths in philosophy which can not be proven so the edifice of science is built upon the foundation of fundamental truths which cant be proven: extension, mass and time.

chew on that

[Anonymous_1]

Originally Posted by Aramis

I was born in the Roman Catholic Church, raised in the Roman and Dominican Rites, but then in adulthood discovered the Ruthenian Catholic Church, which is in union with and Subject to Rome, but is not Roman Catholic.

While still nominally Roman (I've not done the paperwork needed to transfer formally from one to the other), I have become affected strongly by Ruthenian Catholic Byzantine Ritual & Traditional elements.

As to the soul, the Ruthenian influence make me say "The sould is a holy mystery. God gave it to us, and we must take care of it. Worrying about when it came, how it interfaces, and why it's there are pointless."

I disagree and do not believe it to be pointless. If you would like me to elaborate as to why I can but I shall leave it at that otherwise. Of course there are many things we can not possibly understand or know now, these things are a mystery.

However, we can naturally come to know by reason and observation alone certain truths including the existence of God, the existence of the immaterial, non-corporeal and eternal soul, etc.

[Nita]

Thanks for the reply Aramis.

As to the soul, the Ruthenian influence make me say "The sould is a holy mystery. God gave it to us, and we must take care of it. Worrying about when it came, how it interfaces, and why it's there are pointless."[/

Made me think of something I read once regarding all the philosophical probings; something similar to: "God loves philosophers too and cares about their souls."

Nita

[Anonymous_1]

wow. i thought something like this would be huge. im presenting original philosophical proof for the existence of the immaterial soul. a measly 83 views?

i was pretty excited when i thought of this, nobody els thinks this is really cool?

[masterjedi747]

Originally Posted by Anonymous_1

wow. i thought something like this would be huge. im presenting original philosophical proof for the existence of the immaterial soul. a measly 83 views?

i was pretty excited when i thought of this, nobody else thinks this is really cool?

While it's great that you figured this out on your own, I think what you're finding out is that it's not particularly that much of a groundbreaking discovery. It's simply the case that certain proofs for the existence of a spiritual human soul, very similar to yours, have been around for quite a while, ever since people noticed the tremendous gap between the minds of men and animals. The one I learned it went something like this:

1) Operation follows being. An effect cannot be greater than its cause. A thing acts according to how it is. If we find spiritual actions, then their source must be a spiritual being.
2) Spiritual operations in humans (only one needed for proof): We can abstract and know universals (such as humanity), concepts that are not limited by material things. We can have, know, and discuss concepts of purely spiritual things (such as truth and justice). We have a language that transcends the material (purely conventional and changeable, unlike the one-meaning for one-sound correspondence that exists among other animals). We can make purely spiritual choices (such as eating what you know to be healthy for you instead of always eating what is most appealing to your senses).

And that's all aside from the common sense arguments such as "how could a pile of atoms ever be able to really look at itself as if apart from itself and recognize that it exists"? So yeah.... I think that, while this is great, it's just not the kind of spectacular breakthough you might have been expecting it to be. But don't be disappointed....keep up the good work.

[raikou]

What was St Thomas' proof for the existence of the soul?

Yup. Science itself is founded on unproven assumptions. Example, the physical laws assume that repeated and consistent observations will apply everytime. But it doesn't mean that it's unfounded. Science has a good reason to assume this because the laws do seem to be observed consistently everytime. Doesn't necessarily mean it will always be.

On topic, yes, the argument is pretty convincing. It doesn't mean that since thought is accompanied by certain patterns of neuronal impulses, it is purely material. Thought itself can be a separate existence, a different mode of being. It appears to me that matter merely accompanies form (the soul). Matter itself cannot be the effector or cause of changes within itself. Otherwise, it negates the concept of free will, which seems self-evident to us as true.