# Mind and Brain



## Peter (Jun 29, 2006)

What is the relationship between our souls and our bodies? Is intelligence, memory, consciousness, personality, emotion, etc. determined and reside in part of our physical bodies or our spiritual souls? What do you think about DNA, neurology, and what modern science and medicine say about this? What did the heathens say about this? What did the church, the early fathers, the scholastics, the Reformer? What do modern philosophers say? What does the Bible say?


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2006)

This is one of those questions you just dread getting at end of year exams. Where to start?

Volume 6 of Edward Reynold's Works is a veritable Puritan psychology. He allows for a significant physical "ministry" in the operations of the soul.


----------



## Peter (Jun 30, 2006)

just a curiosity. I don't know what to think when people talk about inheriting mental traits. Maybe traducianism would explain this. Other practical questions related to this topic confuse me too. I thought you would have recommended Boston's work on Human Nature. Does he delve into this subject? Thanks for the recommendation.

[Edited on 6-30-2006 by Peter]


----------



## gwine (Jun 30, 2006)

What is mind? Doesn't matter. What is matter? Never mind.

Doggerel attributed by the philosopher Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970) to his parents


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> What is mind? Doesn't matter. What is matter? Never mind.
> 
> Doggerel attributed by the philosopher Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970) to his parents





I think, I think I am, therefore I am, I think. -- The Moody Blues


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> just a curiosity. I don't know what to think when people talk about inheriting mental traits. Maybe traducianism would explain this.


----------



## SRoper (Jun 30, 2006)

Bahnsen argues for a substantival monism in The Mind/Body Problem in Biblical Perspective. Monism (but not materialism) is the most common view among modern philosophers.


----------



## Peter (Jun 30, 2006)

Thanks Scott. I gave the article a skim. Looks like a difficult read (lots of philosophical jargon). Of course I'll have to give it a more thorough study but I'm pretty sure I'm against Bahnsen on this one (leaning towards dualism). One difficulty I'm having with what I think is Bahnsen's view is how he accounts for life during the intermediate state between death and the resurrection. Bahnsen's view sounds like it has support of the Anabaptist doctrine of soul sleep.


----------



## Peter (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SRoper_
> ...



I don't need figures, just asking what the consensus feels like.


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> just a curiosity. I don't know what to think when people talk about inheriting mental traits. Maybe traducianism would explain this. Other practical questions related to this topic confuse me too. I thought you would have recommended Boston's work on Human Nature. Does he delve into this subject? Thanks for the recommendation.



I suppose Boston provides some of the inner workings of the soul in relation to God; but there is nothing in terms of body-soul relationship. No, wait. I do remember a somewhat fascinating discussion which will take place between the body and the soul on the day of judgment, whereby each blames the other for its condemnation. But I would regard that simply as personification.

The Puritan works have an advantage here because they were not prone to the faculty psychology which emerged in the 19th cent. Some would obviously take issue with their dualistic view of the material and immaterial, but I think when it is considered that the soul is the captain of the ship, the dualism is not so harsh as it seems.

Concerning traits, it is a difficult point because there are two different views. Are they inherited or learned -- breeding or environment? I don't doubt that we have predilections, but I believe the Scriptures place the emphasis upon upbringing and individual choice. Peter's "vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers" is certainly a consideration.


----------



## Peter (Jun 30, 2006)

Bahnsen's article was very difficult to understand. I'll have to look for something more basic or written on a simpiler level.



> "As with "soul," "spirit" can be said to depart at death (e.g. Ps. 78;39; Job 17:1; Isa. 57:16; Eccl. 12:7; Lk. 23:46; Acts 7:59; Ps. 104:29; etc.); the disembodied dead are designated as "spirit" (e.g. Job 4:15; 1 Peter 3:19; Heb. 12:23) - indicating a living selfhood. Consequently "spirit" cannot be taken from scripture to support a doctrine of immaterial substance in man; even a passage so strongly positing discontinuity between "spirit" and bodily flesh as Col. 2:5 cannot be read to mean a man's immaterial substance left his body to be elsewhere! "Spirit" can certainly designate man's inner, private life(e.g Dan. 7:15; 1 Cor. 2:11), and death can be seen as the loss of "life-breath" (="spirit"; e.g. Ps. 104:29), and the dead can be affirmed to still have self-conscious life by being called "spirit" (though very infrequently in scripture to be sure), but nowhere does scripture imply that man is a dual substance which divides as he dies (unless you read the Bible through Cartesian glasses). "Spirit" means life (centered in the breath image - just as "soul" is life centered in the blood image)."



That doesn't answer my question at all. If Bahnsen denies that man has a separate mental substance but is just rational, moral matter then what happens when he dies? How can a personal body be self-conscious after the personal body dies? Bahnsen begins to give his view in the next paragraph:



> And even when Paul speaks of putting off the observable, public form of his existence (i.e. the earthly dwelling place; e.g. 2 Cor. 5:1-10; cf. 2 Peter 1:13-14; Job 4:19) he stresses an alternative tabernacle with which the "unclothed" self will be "clothed upon" so as not to be naked in the intermediate state! The idea of an immaterial substance surviving death is foreign to the scriptural account. God created man as a unity, a personal body made as the image of the Personal God; scripture deals with the whole man. In the intermediate and mysterious-to-us state God will make some provision for the person who has had his personal body put in the ground by supplying a heavenly tabernacle (replacing the earthly tent). This state is an "irrational" one from the standpoint of man's created normalcy; it has been necessitated by sin (an irrational force) and made possible by God's gracious del of punishment on the sinner and desire to have persona fellowship with His elect during the playing-out of the period of grace upon earth. It is certain that man does not sleep in death until the resurrection (cf. Lk. 23:43; 16:22f; Matt. 22:32; 2 Cor. 5:1; Phil. 1:19-24; Eccles. 12:7; Matt. 17:3; 1 Sam. 28:11-20), but it is also certain that the man as body decays in the ground. Hence it is not yet manifest what we shall be! (1 John 3:2). Those who live out all of life in this earthly mode of existence have nothing to compare for a different mode (especially an irrational mode). But the human mind is not the source of possibility; all things are possible with God.



Bahnsen denies the doctrine of sleep, denies an immaterial existence after death, acknowledges death of the body, & acknowledges future glorification of the body. It seems he concludes that personality will be transfered to an intermediary body until the resurrection. But he says this is a mystery and that it is 'irratonal' (not sure what sense he means that). I know I can't fairly judge what I don't properly understand but this seems _way_ off.




> But I didn't ask you. I was not under the impression that non-materialist substantival monism was "the most common view among modern philosophers." So, as someone interested in the Philosophy of Mind, and the current field of contemporary approaches, I wanted the stats, since it would contradict other stats I have. Frankly, I don't really understand the relevence of your comment??



Scott was answering my question. I was intimating to him that his answer was sufficient for me. I didn't realize you were contesting what he said. If this contradicts your stats then I'd like to see them too. And if you are interested in philosophy of mind then please contribute to the discussion.


----------



## beej6 (Jul 1, 2006)

I'd recommend Edward Welch's _Blame It On the Brain..._. It's more disease oriented, especially in the second half of the book, but the basic premise goes something like this (forgive my memory): while it may be helpful to talk about a mind/body split, for example, what we really should mean is a heart/body split, which are both separate yet totally interdependent. Welch then goes on to use examples of disease where there are clearly body/biological/physical impairments (Alzheimer's, head trauma); disease where there may be physical impairments but also may be spiritual disease (depression, ADD); and disease commonly (in the secular world) thought of having a physical cause, but which are clearly heart issues (alcoholism, homosexuality).


----------



## SRoper (Jul 4, 2006)

"Just curious, where'd you get these stats?"

I'm only going by what my friend told me who is a professor of philosophy. Now his area of interest is ethics, so he may be mistaken. More likely is that I missed some distinction he made. It could be that he was talking about non-reductive physicalism. 

Thinking back on the conversation, I described to him Bahnsen's position, and he said that that was right in the mainstream of current philosophical thinking. There could have been any number of communication errors there. Anyway I'm certain that he was at least saying that reductive views were not currently in favor.

He holds to substantival dualism, by the way.


----------



## Theogenes (Jul 5, 2006)

I think the bible teaches that the body (brain included) is the tabernacle/tent/house for the soul of man, hence the brain is a tool which the mind or soul uses like the rest of the body. Jesus had a theological discussion with Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration and their brains had been dust for many centuries (Luke 9). It just shows that you don't need any brains to discuss theology! 
Jim


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jim Snyder_
> It just shows that you don't need any brains to discuss theology!
> Jim


----------



## Peter (Jul 5, 2006)

Thanks for the recommendations Paul.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> What is mind? Doesn't matter. What is matter? Never mind.
> 
> Doggerel attributed by the philosopher Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970) to his parents



Age is a question of mind over matter. If you don´t mind, it doesn´t matter. - Satchel Paige


----------

