Am I My Brain? A Heady Topic: Part 2 - Evidence For the Soul
Is it really the case that I am my brain? Let's enter into a moment of philosophical reflection and see what we find. First, as I reflect upon my personal inner sensations and thoughts, I become aware that my sensations and thoughts are uniquely mine. No third party can observe or experience my actual thoughts and sensations such that he or she could provide a first person report of them. These are called mental states, and they differ from brain states. A brain state, like specific activity in the cerebral cortex, can be measured. It is a purely physical thing. This is not so for a corresponding mental state, like a thought or a sensation. A thought of my mother or my sensation of pain cannot be observed by a researcher, because these are not physical things. They transcend the physical by their very nature, and, therefore, must be immaterial.
Furthermore, I am aware that I possess libertarian freedom, that is, the ability to choose or to refrain from choosing a particular course of action. If I were my brain, it is difficult to understand how I could have such a capacity. Physical things do not make choices. They are determined in their behavior by their internal physical and chemical properties. However, human beings are independent initiators of their actions. I am very aware that when I make a choice to raise my arm, to make a sandwich, or to drive to Starbucks, that it is Arnie making a choice as an independent agent, not behaving mechanically as a predetermined thing. Furthermore, unless this experience is real, then notions of personal responsibility and obligation make no sense. All of my actions would be the necessary and uncontrollable result of random physical processes. Libertarian freedom then is evidence that I am not purely physical.
Finally, I am aware that I endure over time. That is, I have personal identity and enjoy absolute sameness through change. Until I was six years old, I did not wear glasses, but have worn them ever since. Between ages twelve and thirteen, my voice changed from soprano to baritone and I grew four inches. By age forty, I had pretty much lost all of my hair, and not long ago, a surgeon relieved me of my gall bladder. But throughout those years and outward physical changes, I have remained the same person. I am innately aware of a substantial self that is other than my body and that endures through time despite changes to my body. In fact, these outward or accidental physical changes could not have occurred to me unless I had been the same person throughout them.
So it seems that there may be a way of looking at our experience through a lens different from that of naturalism or physicalism . Contrary to the claims of scientism , perhaps there is another source of knowledge besides that drawn from empirical observation of physical stuff alone. It appears that philosophical reflection on our first person experience provides us with a deeper understanding of who we are. The position to which this reflection leads us is called dualism.
Unlike naturalism or physicalism, which hold that human beings are nothing more than physical things, dualism argues that human beings consist of both a physical and a non-physical dimension. Furthermore, as demonstrated above, this immaterial aspect of humanness must itself be a
substantial entity with causal powers, powers that enable me
to think, reason, choose and act freely, and endure as the same individual through time. In short, it must be essential to what defines me as a person, that is, what we have historically referred to as the human soul or mind. But what does it matter? Cannot personhood be grounded in a purely physical manner? What might the result be if we tried to do so? We will address this question in our next post "Ethics and the Soul." Don't go away!
Bookmark the Christian Apologetics Blog or subscribe to the Christian Apologetics Blog by email!
Subscribers, visit the Christian Apologetics Blog to read previous articles and comments and to view recommended resources for specific Christian apologetics topics.
Blessings,
Arnie Gentile
Find Christian Apologetics resources at the Christian Apologetics Bookshop.
Categories: Human Nature and the Soul
Tags: Christian Apologetics
This article fails to account for the fact that brain damage easily changes personality (see Phineas Gage), same with drugs, electromagnetic interference (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8593748.stm), etc.
Examine the cases mentioned in this article: http://singularityhub.com/2011/01/29/the-coming-era-of-brain-based-law-through-the-eyes-of-david-eagleman-video/#more-26070
This article as well: http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062110-3
Also, what about amnesia? A knock to the head will ruin our memory. Furthermore, certain animals have certain levels of consciousness, they are not like humans, but they are conscious to a certain primitive level. Yet the Bible doesn't teach animals have souls. So we must account for that.
Take a look at the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface
Furthermore, the point that cells die and new ones are made isn't too good either, because it's true that every 7 years we are "technically" a new physical person, but so are animals, and yet their memories are preserved (I don't know about you, but my dog has been around for 12 years and sill remembers me...).
Mark Goldblatt (http://markgoldblatt.com/Resource/Soul.pdf) provides an actual argument beyond the already dying dualistic explanation for everything. Consciousness comes from the brain, but the soul directs it. This accounts for everything observed.
The brain is the hardware, the mind is the software, the soul is the computer programmer, and when the hardware (or software, I suppose) is destroyed or damaged, the computer programmer (the soul) can no longer interface the way he should with the tools he has to operate in the physical world.
Furthermore, your argument of consciousness being totally pre-determined under natural laws isn't beyond refutation, as further insight into neuroplasticity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity) might reveal more soon. The brain even has the ability to change its functions (http://www.kurzweilai.net/parts-of-brain-can-switch-functions). So as you change, your brain changes, and as your brain changes, you change. Also, who says God can't create a brain so complex that allows for subjective free will? Also, certain scientists are pushing for a Quantum Mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind) theory which doesn't enforce determinism.
If we as Christians are to be taken seriously when defending the soul, we need to acknowledge its limitations of interfacing with the physical world, as well as stop using arguments like "matter can't possibly bring consciousness" for no reason other than it being a personal opinion.
Your sense of fear comes from the amygdala (http://singularityhub.com/2011/01/04/woman-doesnt-fear-reaper-anything-at-all/), which is more proof that dualism needs to radically change if it is to survive in the future.
Reply to this
Hi, thanks for your comments. I respond below in bold italics:
This article fails to account for the fact that brain damage easily changes personality (see Phineas Gage), same with drugs, electromagnetic interference (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8593748.stm), etc.
Examine the cases mentioned in this article: http://singularityhub.com/2011/01/29/the-coming-era-of-brain-based-law-through-the-eyes-of-david-eagleman-video/#more-26070
This article as well: http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062110-3
Also, what about amnesia? A knock to the head will ruin our memory. Furthermore, certain animals have certain levels of consciousness, they are not like humans, but they are conscious to a certain primitive level. Yet the Bible doesn't teach animals have souls. So we must account for that.
Take a look at the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface
Furthermore, the point that cells die and new ones are made isn't too good either, because it's true that every 7 years we are "technically" a new physical person, but so are animals, and yet their memories are preserved (I don't know about you, but my dog has been around for 12 years and sill remembers me...).
This is Part 2 of a three part series. I address the successes of neuroscience in Part 1 of the series, which it appears you have not read. You might want to read the whole series before commenting further. Here is the link to all three parts: http://mychristianapologetics.com/categories/Human%20Nature%20and%20the%20Soul.aspx
Hey…Have a little more respect for your doggie! Does the Bible really teach that animals do not have souls? I am not aware of this being the case. In fact, the Old Testament uses the Hebrew words “nephesh” (soul) and” ruach” (spirit) of animals in Genesis 1:30 and Ecclesiastes 3:21 respectively. These are likely simple souls that do not survive death. In any event, we should not be too quick to assert that all animals are soulless without adequate grounds.
Mark Goldblatt (http://markgoldblatt.com/Resource/Soul.pdf) provides an actual argument beyond the already dying dualistic explanation for everything. Consciousness comes from the brain, but the soul directs it. This accounts for everything observed.
The brain is the hardware, the mind is the software, the soul is the computer programmer, and when the hardware (or software, I suppose) is destroyed or damaged, the computer programmer (the soul) can no longer interface the way he should with the tools he has to operate in the physical world.
I found Goldblatt’s article interesting and entertaining. But I would hardly call what he has presented an argument for or against any particular anthropological view. In fact, he obviously presupposes a form of dualism. He is musing over how the soul and the brain might interact given dualism and seems quite amenable to either a Platonic or Aristotelian approach. He fleshes out in a most accessible manner arguably the most difficult problem for materialists in this debate, that is, the unity of consciousness and self awareness. (I would add a related and equally difficult dilemma for materialists: the correlation between brain states and mental states. Strict materialist are left with the totally implausible option that they are the same. As the Tyndall quote that opens the article suggests, the problem has not gone away in the last century and a half).
Goldblatt concludes that he sees no way at this point that we can get to unity of consciousness and self awareness from here without an immaterial nature, i.e., a soul. I would disagree with Goldblatt's apparent evolutionary presuppositions and resultant emergentism, but I think he is at least tracking in the right woods. (Incidentally, William Hasker has proposed a substantial immaterial soul that emerges upon the physical from a Christian perspective in his book The Emergent Self. For an abbreviated presentation, I recommend his article entitled “Persons as Emergent Substances” in Soul and Body Survival: Essays on the Metaphysics of Human Persons, edited by Kevin Corcoran: http://www.amazon.com/Soul-Body-Survival-Metaphysics-Persons/dp/080148684X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299552111&sr=1-3)
Again, I disagree with Hasker’s emergentism on both philosophical and theological grounds.
Furthermore, your argument of consciousness being totally pre-determined under natural laws isn't beyond refutation, as further insight into neuroplasticity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity) might reveal more soon.
I think you misread me here. I said nothing about natural laws. I believe in natural laws. What I argue is that libertarian free will and sameness of personal identity through time do not find a home within the worldview of “naturalism”, that is, a closed materialistic worldview within which immaterial entities are not welcome and where human beings are just physical things.
The brain even has the ability to change its functions (http://www.kurzweilai.net/parts-of-brain-can-switch-functions). So as you change, your brain changes, and as your brain changes, you change. Also, who says God can't create a brain so complex that allows for subjective free will? Also, certain scientists are pushing for a Quantum Mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind) theory which doesn't enforce determinism.
Certainly as our souls interact with the Holy Spirit and we are transformed increasingly into the image of Christ, I would anticipate that corresponding changes in brain states would be apparent. But we must be careful not to mistake our thoughts of God for the electrochemical activity in the brain. Brain activity is purely physical and measurable. Thoughts of God are immaterial and immeasurable. In fact, the very property of intentionality (the “of-ness” or “about-ness” of our thoughts) is immaterial and cannot be located in the brain.
If we as Christians are to be taken seriously when defending the soul, we need to acknowledge its limitations of interfacing with the physical world, as well as stop using arguments like "matter can't possibly bring consciousness" for no reason other than it being a personal opinion.
Your sense of fear comes from the amygdala (http://singularityhub.com/2011/01/04/woman-doesnt-fear-reaper-anything-at-all/), which is more proof that dualism needs to radically change if it is to survive in the future.
Wait a minute! Even your friend Mark Goldblatt asserts that it is quite difficult for him to imagine matter bringing consciousness. In this short three part series, I have offered an argument based on philosophical reflective evidence for the existence of a non-emergent immaterial dimension to human beings. I believe my argument is both valid and sound. You may not find it cogent, but if because of that you are suggesting that I am expressing my own unargued opinion, that would be a misrepresentation.
Quite a number of Christian academics have argued powerfully, and, in my estimation, persuasively for a non-emergent soul on philosophical, theological, and empirical grounds. You may want to check out some of the books I feature at the end of the third article in this series. Cooper’s book remains the seminal work on this topic from the standpoint of philosophical theology. Moreland and Rae present a rigorously argued case for Thomistic dualism and the impact of dualism on ethical reasoning. Habermas has done extensive research in the field of well evidenced near death experiences that offer potent empirical support for the existence of an immaterial human substance let alone life after death. I would add a recent work by J.P. Moreland entitled The Recalcitrant Imago Dei: Human Persons and the Failure of Naturalism: http://www.amazon.com/Recalcitrant-Imago-Dei-Persons-Naturalism/dp/0334042151/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299555101&sr=1-6
Christians do need to take the soul seriously and not allow it to be hijacked or its remarkable powers to be minimized just because brain science has confirmed with sophisticated equipment what human beings had known intuitively and by direct observation for quite a long time already: soulish behavior is affected by changes in the brain and vice versa. Christians need to recapture confidence in the dualism that is taught in the Bible and that is given to us in our experience and to shamelessly defend this position in the public square. Recovering a robust notion of this composite nature of human beings and the resultant reality of the Image of God in them is the surest path toward a humane ethic that recognizes the full personhood of every individual from conception to the grave.
Blessings,
Arnie Gentile
Reply to this