This is late, but Wednesday we discussed the difference between the mind and brain. One person remarked that she believed it could proceed with the soul after life is passed. This is obviously one train of thinking, as an atheist, I do not believe the same, but I am not going to pretend I have the gall to say either one is definitively wrong or right.
It is my opinion that the mind and soul are one single, immaterial construct of the mind. One commonly known as the self.
Now, as I am not a neuroscientist, I can not attest to my theory that the human soul is of human, not divine design. With the evolutionary development of the neocortex, and the ability to process complex, abstract ideas such as time and philosophy. Once they grasped the concept of their mortality, they were imbued with soul. Not an eternal soul that will live on in the great thereafter, but one conscious for this world where it develops and reacts and adapt to what is presented to it, perhaps, the mind affects reality as much as reality affects the mind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Most atheists will claim that mind is not identical to but an emergent property of the brain. To my mind, it's a perfectly sensible, if currently perplexing, position to adopt.
Are you suggesting, then, that the human capacity for morality (or virtue) would be equivalent to your definition of soul? Or do you attach to it supernatural attributes as well?
If it is the first, would you say your usage here is largely metaphorical, in much the same way Albert Einstein referred to the laws of the universe as "God"?
Post a Comment