This is not an accurate description in the case of neurons, many of which persist from birth — wonderer1

This is precisely why i stated it as:

Over a period of seven to eight years, almost all the cells in your body have been replaced, — punos

Well, I don't exactly know how they work, I'm a soulless swine here to dine up thine! Now give me what is mine!...

But, I would imagine, since Kant extended the life of Christianity with renewed belief in the "thing inside itself," that that is one way a soul could work.

Over a period of seven to eight years, almost all the cells in your body have been replaced, — punos

I thought your depiction had merit. I'll also add that it is now thought that neurons are actually generated in specific regions of the adult brain throughout life, and also that new neural connections and pathways are being created and destroyed regularly through the process of neuroplasticity.

I thought your depiction had merit. — Wayfarer

:up:

I'll also add that it is now thought that neurons are actually generated in specific regions of the adult brain throughout life, and also that new neural connections and pathways are being created and destroyed regularly through the process of neuroplasticity. — Wayfarer

That is quite true as well. For me, it is precisely these neural connections that constitute a soul. A unique human soul emerges from the distinct pattern of connectivity formed within the specific constraints of the human neural architecture. A different animal would develop a different kind of soul, and there are all kinds of souls. A soul is able to change and evolve thanks to the neuroplasticity of the brain.

Well, my main point is that the soul - not that you have to believe in such a word! - is not something you have, like an appendix or a limb, but what you are. It's a question of identity. Someone (might have been you?) mentioned the Ship of Theseus puzzle. It's that kind of question - how something or someone can remain the same while also changing.

Here again the Buddhist view is instructive. Buddhists firmly reject the idea of the soul as something unchanging that travels from life to life. But there is a 'stream of consciousness' (citta-santāna), an ongoing flow of existence-experience. It is not a static entity but a dynamic series of arising and passing mental moments (dharmas).

Interestingly, there has been research on the connection between citta-santāna and neuroplasticity, showing that brain function can be measurably altered by persistent patterns of attentional activity. See Exploring Meditation's Role in Neuroplasticity.

There was a famous and highly influential experiment conducted by Dr. Álvaro Pascual-Leone and his team at Harvard Medical School in the 1990s. This study is a cornerstone in the field of neuroplasticity and motor learning, and it beautifully illustrates the power of mental practice.

Here's a breakdown:

The Experiment:

The Task: A group of volunteers who had no prior piano experience were taught a simple, five-finger piano exercise.

The Groups:

Physical Practice Group: This group was instructed to physically practice the exercise on a piano for two hours a day, for five consecutive days.

Mental Practice Group: This group was given the exact same instructions, but with a critical difference: they were told to only imagine playing the piano exercise. They were not allowed to move their fingers or touch a piano. They simply "played" the piece in their mind.

The Measurements: Before and after each daily session, the researchers used a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to map the volunteers' brains. TMS allowed them to measure the size of the motor cortex region dedicated to controlling the specific finger movements required for the exercise.

The Remarkable Results:

Both groups showed a measurable and significant change in their neural configurations.

The brains of the students who physically practiced the piano piece showed a clear expansion of the motor cortex area responsible for controlling the fingers used in the exercise. This was the expected result—that physical skill acquisition leads to brain reorganization.

However, the most groundbreaking finding was that the brains of the students who only mentally practiced also showed a similar, and in some cases, almost identical expansion of the motor cortex.

The Conclusion and Implications:

This experiment provided compelling evidence that the brain's "plasticity" is not solely dependent on physical action. The mere act of mental rehearsal or motor imagery is enough to trigger the same kind of neural changes that occur with actual physical practice.

This has profound implications, not just for musicians and athletes who use mental rehearsal to improve their performance, but also for fields like rehabilitation. For example, the findings suggest that patients who are physically unable to perform an action (e.g., due to a stroke or injury) can still stimulate and rewire their brains by mentally rehearsing the movements they wish to regain.

The Pascual-Leone experiment is a perfect example of how "mind" (or in Buddhist terms, citta-santāna) can directly and tangibly "change the brain" (or its neuroplastic structure), providing a powerful scientific bridge between contemplative practice and neuroscience.

Ref: Pascual-Leone, A., Nguyet, A. D., Cohen, L. G., Brasil-Neto, J. P., Cammarota, A., & Hallett, M. (1995). Modulation of muscle responses evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation during the acquisition of new fine motor skills. Journal of Neurophysiology, 74(3), 1037-1045. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7500130/.

Also

Begley, Sharon. Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain: How a New Science Reveals Our Extraordinary Potential to Transform Ourselves. New York: Ballantine Books, 2007.

Well, my main point is that the soul - not that you have to believe in such a word! - is not something you have, like an appendix or a limb, but what you are. It's a question of identity. — Wayfarer

That is absolutely correct. You, i, and the Buddhists are in perfect accord on this point. You are not who you are without your soul.

However, i think all souls are aware, but not all souls are self-aware. What are your thoughts on this specific point? Do you think an entity can "have" or be an identity (a soul) without directly realizing it is an identity? Consider animals that do not recognize themselves in a mirror.

Yes, i've heard of that experiment, but the version i know involved basketball players mentally rehearsing their moves, as opposed to physically practicing on the court.

Not all souls are self-aware — punos

Agree. But consider again Aristotle's view of 'psuche' (psyche). There was the vegetative, animal, and rational soul, each with different levels of capability, and each possessing the powers of the lesser kind, plus additional powers - in humans, the capacity for rational thought and speech (hence humans, the 'rational animal'.)

This view is deprecated nowadays with decline of the belief in soul. But phenomenology of biology explores the sense in which even very primitive organisms are 'intentional' in some basic kind of way, which can be seen as an analogy for Aristotle's psuche. Phenomenological biology takes seriously the distinctive features of living beings—purpose, self-organization, and intentionality—and tries to show how these features can be understood in a way that respects both the insights of modern science and the wisdom of philosophical traditions, particularly Aristotle's.

However, again, agree that overall humans are uniquely self-aware in a way that other creatures are not.

Consider animals that do not recognize themselves in a mirror. — punos

Ah, but some do. See The Mirror Test

But consider again Aristotle's view of 'psuche' (psyche). There was the vegetative, animal, and rational soul, each with different levels of capability, and each possessing the powers of the lesser kind, plus additional powers - in humans, the capacity for rational thought and speech (hence humans, the 'rational animal'.) — Wayfarer

Good answer. This is mostly how i see it, much like Aristotle. However, regarding the mirror test with animals, i’ve noticed that passing it does not necessarily depend on the organism’s level of complexity. It appears to involve a specific structure in the brain or nervous system, which need not be as complex as one might assume at first in order to provide self-awareness. It is certainly interesting.

Animals and plants are pretty much identical to humans when it comes to the cellular structure. So how come their soul is markedly different to that of humans?

Animals and plants are pretty much identical to humans when it comes to the cellular structure. So how come their soul is markedly different to that of humans? — Punshhh

At the individual cell level, they are largely the same, although some differences exist due to genetic expression. Each animal has an evolutionary heritage that shapes the morphology of its body and its brain or nervous system. These differences in morphology account for variations in neural architecture and, consequently, the kind of "soul" an animal possesses. The "soul" serves as the template for the expression of consciousness and determines the specific type of consciousness that a particular animal exhibits. This is why, for example, the consciousness of a fish is different from that of a bird or a dog, and so on.

If one examines different artificial neural network architectures and considers how the same input information produces different outputs when applied to each architecture, it becomes clear that differences in neural architecture fundamentally affect how information is processed within that architecture.

This image shows a sample of various neural network architectures:


This image shows a sample of various brain morphologies:

Thanks, I largely agree with that. Although soul has a lot of baggage and definitions, roles played vary a lot. We are grappling with something intangible, but which we know intimately, but may not know what we know, or that we know it.

I suppose what I was getting at in my question is that we, humans, are basically the same as the other examples in your illustration, but with a computer bolted on. A chimp might have an early IBM computer bolted on. These additions vastly increase processing power, but what do they add apart from that?
Very little I would suggest in terms of their sense of presence, being, consciousness. It roughly boils down to the ability to think, and self reflect, with an enhanced sense of sentience. Otherwise we are pretty much the same. In some ways, perhaps it amounts to a regression. Certainly when it comes to social and ecosystem behaviour, no other animal is so stupid.

I’m not accusing you of this, but we should remain guarded against belittling the experience of other animals and indeed plants. Or placing ourselves on a pedestal.

In my practice I revere the presence and wisdom in the plants and animals around me.

In my practice I revere the presence and wisdom in the plants and animals around me. — Punshhh

:smile:

Question 1: If there is such a thing as a "soul," where did it come from? Did God or any other diety create it?

Question 2: If there is a "soul" inside your body, is it seperate from you or is it the same as you? In other words, who is in control of the body? Is it like a "Player vs. Vessel" situation as we see in the games created by Toby Fox (Undertale and Deltarune)? "Are you truly in control of yourself?" is the question I am trying to ask, I suppose. And let's say hypothetically, that Christianity is true, would that mean that You would go to Heaven, or "you," the soul? Since those are two separate things.

Question 3: If the soul is seperate from the body, why even bother to be a good person? You wouldn't even go to Heaven, your SOUL would. Would you even bother to be a good person?

Question 4: If the soul and the body are one and the same, how would that even work? Is it something akin to "you are the soul piloting a human body" type situation, like some spiritual people say? — Null Noir

Q1. No. There is doubt there is a self.
Q2. There isn't but I assume if a soul exists it would be separate.
Q3. I assume your soul is "you" so you may as well be a good boy (or girl)
Q4. It wouldn't.

Question 1: If there is such a thing as a "soul," where did it come from? Did God or any other diety create it?

Guess evolution

Question 2: If there is a "soul" inside your body, is it seperate from you or is it the same as you? In other words, who is in control of the body? Is it like a "Player vs. Vessel" situation as we see in the games created by Toby Fox (Undertale and Deltarune)? "Are you truly in control of yourself?" is the question I am trying to ask, I suppose. And let's say hypothetically, that Christianity is true, would that mean that You would go to Heaven, or "you," the soul? Since those are two separate things.

Brain produces soul somehow and it plays its little tricks. The Freudian superme have pretty good control, but not ptotal control.

Question 3: If the soul is seperate from the body, why even bother to be a good person? You wouldn't even go to Heaven, your SOUL would. Would you even bother to be a good person?

Brain kinda produces soul, and that produces the person, that is resposible for its little naughty scemes.

Question 4: If the soul and the body are one and the same, how would that even work? Is it something akin to "you are the soul piloting a human body" type situation, like some spiritual people say?

They aint the same to me, to me the soul is a brain process and the brain is a part of the body

Mind is the faculty of knowledge. — Wayfarer

How does the mind create thoughts?

Spontaneously!

What is the duty of the brain when it comes to thoughts, if the mind is the thinking thing?

'Duty' is a rather odd word to use.

The graphics provided by @punos in the above post are instructive. They illustrate the massive proportion of the forebrain in h.sapiens, and primates generally, in relation to other species. The human brain and human anatomy, generally, evolved very rapidly, in geological and evolutionary terms (compared with evolutionary changes in other lineages).

In any case, with h.sapiens, the capacity for language, abstract thought, story-telling, art, tool-making, has arrived. Plainly that is linked to the development of the forebrain, but in my view, the evolutionary account doesn't capture the full significance of that.

There's a lot of reading to do in that subject - evolutionary psychology, linguistics, anthropology, paleontology to mention a few subjects. But again, the philosophical question of whether mind and brain are the same may not be answered even by all of that.

Very briefly, I think the development of the kind of self-awareness that h.sapiens has, means we're no longer just biologically determined, in the way that other creatures are. We can enquire into nature, our own and generally, in a way that animals cannot. We still bleed, breed, sweat, and die, but we are able to awaken to intellectual and spiritual capacites beyond the biological. That's what I think the ancient intuition of 'soul' is pointing to.

How does the mind create thoughts? — MoK

What is the duty of the brain when it comes to thoughts, if the mind is the thinking thing? — MoK

The mind does not create thoughts; it is the brain that generates them. The mind simply emerges from the operations of the brain. It represents the aspect of the brain that is more than the sum of its parts (the parts being the neurons). One way to distinguish between the brain and the mind is to use an analogy: the brain is like hardware, while the mind is like software.

The structure and architecture of the brain establishes a latent space in which the abstract objects we call memories are stored and associated. When you have an experience, the brain disassembles the raw data of that experience into its fundamental components or features and stores these parts in a kind of hierarchy within its neural patterns. When we think, the brain retrieves these associated components and reassembles them in what some people refer to as the "global workspace". This process is called remembering because we are taking the parts, or "members", of a stored experience and putting them back together. All of this happens constantly, whether you are aware of it or not, even while you sleep, which is why you dream. The term "mind", at least how i use it, refers to the overall abstract aspect of the brain's activity. It is a phenomenon similar in my view to life itself, but at a higher level of abstraction.

A mind is actually an emergent abstract space. In the same way you can have a "thing" in the world, in physical space, you can also have a "think" in the abstract space that is the mind. In fact any space is in fact a mind of some kind. Molecular space, biological space, culture space, and particularly cyberspace which is the latest spacial emergence on this planet.

We have two things, the mind and the brain, when it comes to thinking, as follows. I am a substance pluralist, so I am sure that the mind exists; by the mind, I mean a substance with the ability to experience and cause. We experience many things, including thoughts. Thinking is a conscious activity; therefore, the mind is involved. We know that the brain is also involved in thinking since thinking in a person with brain damage is impaired. I am sure that other minds, such as the subconscious mind, are also involved when it comes to a complex thought process. What I am interested to say is what the mind and the brain do when it comes to thinking. Let's think of a simple word that your conscious mind can comprehend at the moment that you perceive it: Cup! This word refers to an idea as well. I think a new idea is created at the moment when a sufficient amount of proper ideas are perceived by the mind. For sure, other minds are involved in understanding a complex idea, given the fact that the mind is simple. Your conscious mind, for example, has very little memory, so you cannot even understand the idea that a long sentence is referring to! I think the brain is an infrastructure in which information is exchanged between the conscious and subconscious minds. So, we cannot think when a certain part of our brain is damaged.

The point is that ideas are not causally efficacious within materialism since an idea is a mental event only. We know that ideas are the key elements in thoughts. So, materialism fails to explain how we could have thoughts.

The point is that ideas are not causally efficacious within materialism since an idea is a mental event only. We know that ideas are the key elements in thoughts. So, materialism fails to explain how we could have thoughts. — MoK

Yes, but my point is that an idea or a thought cannot exist without a material substrate to support and contain it, such as the brain. When you have an idea or a thought, what is actually happening is that a neural structure or pattern in your brain is being activated or excited. This activation is perceived by other parts of your brain, and the network of interconnected "neural self-perceptions" between these different parts and regions of the brain causes the conscious awareness of your thoughts and ideas. As soon as that neural pattern is disrupted or stops, all thoughts and ideas would equally be disrupted or cease. It is evidently clear that the material substrate for thoughts and ideas is not only the neurons in your brain but also the relative networked connections between them. The structured organization of your material brain is the very thing that allows you to have even the simplest thought possible.

It appears that you have taken idealism and materialism to be two completely different and incompatible perspectives, when in fact they are two sides of the same coin. To use the computer analogy i suggested earlier, a computer's hardware represents its materialistic aspect, and the software represents its idealistic aspect. They go together like time and space and cannot really do anything without each other. Software cannot exist without hardware, and hardware cannot do anything without software.

If you were to allow a brain surgeon to open your brain and begin poking at different areas while you were still awake and aware, you would notice that when the surgeon stimulates a specific spot in the brain, you would experience a specific memory, thought, or emotion associated with that area. This demonstrates that the material and the ideal are causally and efficaciously connected.

Look here:

If you were to allow a brain surgeon to open your brain and begin poking at different areas while you were still awake and aware, you would notice that when the surgeon stimulates a specific spot in the brain, you would experience a specific memory, thought, or emotion associated with that area. This demonstrates that the material and the ideal are causally and efficaciously connected. — punos

However one crucial point that Penfield noted was that the subject could always distinguish a movement or a memory that was elicited by the surgeon from something the subject themselves did. They would say 'you did that'.

This suggests that conscious will or subjective agency is not reducible to mere activity in the motor cortex or memory centers. There's an interpretive or integrative function in the mind that is able to recognize the source of an impulse, distinguishing between self and non-self. Penfield himself was so struck by this that he became increasingly open to the idea that mind and brain are not identical—that perhaps consciousness is not fully explainable in terms of brain processes alone.

In The Mystery of the Mind (1975), Penfield wrote:

“The mind seems to act independently of the brain in a way that we do not yet understand. ... It is not possible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal action within the brain" (ref}.

Another crucial point is that neuroscience has not been able to identify the area of the brain that is responsible for the conscious unity of experience. 'enough is known about the structure and function of the visual system to rule out any detailed neural representation that embodies the subjective experience'. And yet this sense of subjective unity is the fulcrum around which all our inner life turns.

I think the brain is an infrastructure in which information is exchanged between the conscious and subconscious minds. So, we cannot think when a certain part of our brain is damaged. — MoK

Sure.

However one crucial point that Penfield noted was that the subject could always distinguish a movement or a memory that was elicited by the surgeon from something the subject themselves did. They would say 'you did that'. — Wayfarer

My explanation for this relates to how the situation is set up. The patient is aware of what is happening and knows that the surgeon will be performing exogenous stimulations of his brain. The patient is perceiving the environment and the situation, processing that information in the very brain that is being stimulated. The brain recognizes that it did not generate this movement on its own because it notices there was no conscious reason for it. In the context of the situation, the brain can easily deduce what happened.

A similar phenomenon occurs with "alien hand syndrome", where a patient who has had the hemispheres of their brain disconnected loses volitional control over one hand, much like in the video example. This happens because there are effectively two separate perspectives living in the same brain due to the disconnection. If the two hemispheres were internally connected and integrated, the movement would feel completely volitional. The sense of free will arises from this internal integration of the entire nervous system and brain. Once that integration is disrupted, actions begin to feel out of the individual's control; particularly if the stimulation occurs in shallower regions like motor centers. The surgeon stimulating the brain externally mimics this type of disintegration.

If the surgeon simply stimulates a motor region to move the hand, the brain recognizes that it did not perform the necessary processing to initiate the movement. However, if the surgeon were to stimulate a deeper, more upstream structure, one that precedes motor regions, it could then trigger the initial unconscious pattern of a specific decision, such as moving the hand, which would then feel volitional. It should also be noted that our conscious decisions are processed subconsciously before we become aware of them.

This scene from Robocop illustrates how the right stimulation of deeper brain regions responsible for decision-making can be hijacked, making the person believe they are making their own decisions while actually being controlled externally:

Another crucial point is that neuroscience has not been able to identify the area of the brain that is responsible for the conscious unity of experience. 'enough is known about the structure and function of the visual system to rule out any detailed neural representation that embodies the subjective experience'. And yet this sense of subjective unity is the fulcrum around which all our inner life turns. — Wayfarer

I do not believe there is a single, literal region of the brain responsible for the conscious unity of experience because it is the unified integration of the entire brain and nervous system that gives rise to this unity. It is all the parts working together harmoniously. Disruption to the integrity and unity of the brain would disrupt the unity and integrity of conscious experience. The visual center of the brain is only one part of the whole brain and does not process sound, smell, or any of the other senses. All the sensory centers must work together in the right way for conscious unity to emerge.

The brain recognizes that it did not generate this movement on its own because it notices there was no conscious reason for it. In the context of the situation, the brain can easily deduce what happened. — punos

But that comes close to what is described as the mereological fallacy - the attribution of an action to a part (the brain) when it actually originates with the whole (an agent. The mereological fallacy is described in an influential if controversial book called The Philosophical Basis of Neuroscience, Bennett and Hacker.)

I don't believe (but could be mistaken) that Penfield suggested an operation could be performed that would give the subject the illusion of having initiated an action that the surgeon actually initiated.

So the better expression would be that the subject can easily deduce what happened.

I do not believe there is a single, literal region of the brain responsible for the conscious unity of experience because it is the unified integration of the entire brain and nervous system that gives rise to this unity. — punos

Quite right - once again, an echo of the Aristotelian psuche, the 'principle of unity' that characterises living things.

AI has helped track down the exct Wilder Penfield quotes from his book Mystery of the Mind:

On agency under stimulation:

“When I have caused a conscious patient to move his hand… Invariably his response was: ‘I didn’t do that. You did.’ When I caused him to vocalize, he said: ‘I didn’t make that sound. You pulled it out of me.’”

Internet Archive

On why he rejects strict materialism:

“Because it seems to me certain that it will always be quite impossible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal action within the brain… I am forced to choose the proposition that our being is to be explained on the basis of two fundamental elements.”

Internet Archive

On the mind acting independently (his programmer/computer analogy):

“…the mind seems to act independently of the brain in the same sense that a programmer acts independently of his computer, however much he may depend upon the action of that computer for certain purposes.”

Internet Archive

Notice, in particular, that the last metaphor compares the programmer and the computer, NOT the software and the computer.

Also that his 'two fundamental elements' does suggest mind-body dualism.

“…the mind seems to act independently of the brain in the same sense that a programmer acts independently of his computer, however much he may depend upon the action of that computer for certain purposes.”

The extended mind theory proposes a different way of defining the "whole". It argues that the cognitive system is not limited to the brain or even to the body, but is a coupled system that includes the brain, the body, and various external tools and resources. In this view, a person's mind is not just their brain; rather, it is the entire functional system involved in performing a cognitive task.

I largely subscribe to this perspective. For instance, in the context of programming, the relevant cognitive system includes the programmer, the computer, and the software being developed. Within this framework, the programmer and the computer are not entirely separate; their cognitive processes emerge from the integration and interaction of both components. The mind, considered as a coupled system, cannot function independently of its essential parts. If the computer is removed, the cognitive system and its capabilities are fundamentally altered. The mind is therefore not separate from the brain; it is a larger system, with the brain serving as a central component.

Additionally, extended mind theory is not generally considered to commit the mereological fallacy as far as i can tell. On the contrary, it can be seen as a sophisticated response to the very issue that the mereological fallacy highlights, since it addresses the relationship between parts and wholes in cognitive systems by emphasizing integration rather than separation.

Additionally, extended mind theory is not generally considered to commit the mereological fallacy as far as i can tell. — punos

Sure, agree with that. My remark was directed at the paragraph about the Robocop analogy, where it seemed to be suggesting that the brain usurps the role of an actual agent. (Those split-brain examples are pretty difficult to fathom, though, I'll admit.)