RE: Infusion of the soul as a process

From: Shuan Rose (
Date: Wed Jul 24 2002 - 13:53:40 EDT

  • Next message: Shuan Rose: "RE: Infusion of the soul as a process"

            Well, I would suggest that we first all agree on a common definition of
    "soul". I suggested one: I have heard at least one different definition.
    What's yours, Adrian or anyone else?

    -----Original Message-----
    From: []On
    Behalf Of Adrian Teo
    Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 3:25 AM
    To: Shuan Rose; JW Burgeson;;;;
    Subject: RE: Infusion of the soul as a process

    Hello Shuan,

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Shuan Rose []
            Sent: Tue 7/23/2002 2:03 PM
            To: JW Burgeson;; Adrian Teo;;;
            Subject: RE: Infusion of the soul as a process

            Unfortunately, this is probably as "clean" as it gets. A
    difficulty I see is
            that "soul" is commonly thought be the thinking, conscious center of a
            person, essentially synonymous with "mind". Since " mind" and
    "brain" are
            related from a scientific point of view, I find it hard to
    understand an
            infusion before the development of the brain. Maybe we all
    need to settle on
            a definition of "soul" ( Does anyone have James Brown's email ?):-)

            Adrian: You seem to take a functionalist view of personhood,
    i.e. that personhood is defined by the capacities of the biological
    entity. However, although one cannot function as a person without
    being a person, one can surely be a person without functioning as one
    (e.g. in deep sleep, coma, autism). The capacity or function is an
    indicator and an effect of being a person, but it cannot define the
    person. Functionalists makes the mistake of confusing the sign from
    the thing signified.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 24 2002 - 15:38:30 EDT