65. The Immateriality of Reason and Brain-Thought Relationship

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Immateriality of Reason/Understanding #

• The object of reason is the quidditas (what it is) of something sensed or imagined
• This what-it-is is universal, while individual things are singular when sensed/imagined
• Understanding knows things universally, separated from their material conditions
• Since understanding receives things without the conditions of the continuous (parts outside of parts), the intellect cannot be a body

The Continuous vs. Non-Continuous #

• The continuous: that whose parts meet at a common boundary; always here or there in space
• Individual things differ only by position in the continuous (matter)
• What a thing is (its universal form) is neither here nor there
• Understanding receives universals in a non-continuous way, proving it’s not a body

John Locke’s Problem with General Ideas #

• Locke struggled to imagine a general triangle (scaling? isosceles? equilateral?)
• The imagination can only produce singular images, never universal ones
• But understanding grasps what is common to all triangles, separated from particular differences
• This demonstrates transcendence beyond imagination into immaterial knowledge

The Brain-Thought Relationship: Organ vs. Object #

• Common mistake: “Brain damage interferes with thinking, therefore the brain is the organ of thought”
• This commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent
• Two ways something can interfere with an operation:
  1. On the side of the organ (hitting the eye interferes with seeing)
  2. On the side of the object (removing what you’re looking at interferes with seeing)
• Brain interference occurs on the object side: it interferes with imagination (phantasm), not with understanding itself
• Just as removing an external object doesn’t make that object the organ of sight

Material Form vs. Subsistent Form #

• A material form (like heat) does not subsist or act by itself; only the hot thing acts
• Therefore we say “the hot heats” not “heat heats”
• The human soul, by contrast, is something subsisting (aliquid subsisting) despite being a form

Key Arguments #

Argument from Universal Knowledge #

• Premise 1: Understanding knows all bodies universally (the what-it-is of any body)
• Premise 2: The intellect receives things separated from what individuates them (the continuous/matter)
• Premise 3: What is received in the continuous is received here or there, thus as singular
• Conclusion: Since understanding receives things universally and not in spatial position, the intellect is not continuous/not a body

The Logic of Brain Interference (Syllogism Analysis) #

False Form:

• If the brain is the organ of thought, then brain damage interferes with thinking
• Brain damage does interfere with thinking
• Therefore, the brain is the organ of thought
• Defect: Affirms the consequent; conclusion doesn’t follow necessarily (the inference is invalid)

Valid Form:

• If the brain is the organ of thought, then brain damage interferes
• Brain damage does interfere
• Therefore [no valid conclusion can be drawn]

Either-Or Argument:

• If brain damage interferes with thinking, then either: (a) brain is the organ of thought, OR (b) it’s on the side of the object
• Brain damage does interfere
• By separate arguments showing understanding is immaterial, we eliminate (a)
• Therefore, interference is on the side of the object

Geometric Demonstration (Universal Understanding) #

• The theorem “interior angles of a triangle equal two right angles” is demonstrated about triangle as triangle, not about isosceles/equilateral triangles specifically
• This proves understanding grasps the universal separated from particular differences
• Such universal knowledge cannot occur in imagination (which produces only singular images)

Important Definitions #

Aliquid (Something/This Something) #

• Can mean: (1) anything that subsists, or (2) something subsisting that is complete in a species
• The soul is aliquid in sense (1): it subsists
• The soul is NOT aliquid in sense (2): it’s a part of the human species, not complete in itself
• The complete human is the composite of soul and body

Haq-aliquid #

• Existence by itself; subsisting
• The hand is haq-aliquid in the first sense (it subsists) but not in the second (it’s a part, incomplete)

Phantasm (φάντασμα) #

• The image in imagination; the sensible form received in the imagination
• The proper object of human reason when in the body
• Understanding uses phantasms as its object, not as its organ

Organ vs. Object (in operation) #

• Organ: The faculty or bodily instrument by which an operation is performed
• Object: That which is operated upon or toward which the operation is directed
• Brain damage affects the object (imagination/phantasm), not the organ (intellect)

Examples & Illustrations #

The Light Bulb and Sight #

• You’re in a dark room with one light bulb; hitting the bulb interferes with your seeing another person
• Hitting your eye also interferes with seeing that person
• One interference is on the side of the organ (eye); the other on the side of the object (light source)
• Both prevent the operation, but in fundamentally different ways
• Analogously: brain damage and alcohol interfere with thinking, but likely on the side of imagination (object), not intellect (organ)

The Room Without Windows #

• Illustrates the distinction between organ and object: you can prevent seeing either by damaging the eye OR by removing the object
• Not all interference proves the thing being interfered with is an organ

Hearing Mozart #

• Your wife turning down the volume interferes with your hearing (object side)
• Boxing your ears interferes with your hearing (organ side, like Beethoven’s father’s abuse)
• Static or turning off speakers also interferes (object side)
• Multiple modes of interference demonstrate the distinction

The Computer iTunes Interruption #

• Personal anecdote: Mozart music streaming interrupted mid-song, not by ear damage but by internet/software interruption
• Illustrates interference on the object side in modern context

Geometry and Understanding #

• After studying solid geometry, plane geometry seems easier
• Understanding greater intelligibles makes lesser intelligibles clearer
• Opposite of sensation: powerful sensibles corrupt the senses (bright light blinds; loud sound deafens)
• Proves understanding is immaterial

Plato’s Parmenides Problem #

• Young Socrates imagined the universal (like “Man”) as a big sail covering all of us
• Problem: this makes the universal a divided thing (part of it would be on you, part on me)
• Shows the impossibility of imagining the universal
• Demonstrates the need to transcend imagination

Air as Name for Spirit #

• Ancient and scriptural usage: “God is spirit”; “angels are spirit”; God “breathed into” Adam
• The word “spirit” (πνεῦμα/spiritus) borrowed from “air” because air is barely sensible, almost invisible
• Yet air is still a material substance
• When applied to soul, angels, and God, the word takes on new meaning: immaterial substance
• Shows attempts to name the immaterial while constrained by imagination

Questions Addressed #

Q: If understanding needs imagination, doesn’t that make understanding bodily? #

A: No. Understanding needs imagination as its object, not as its organ. Just as sight needs an external colored object but the eye isn’t that external object, understanding uses phantasms but isn’t in the imagination. The proper object of reason is “the what-it-is of something sensed or imagined,” not the sensed thing itself or the imagination itself.

Q: Doesn’t brain damage prove the brain is the organ of thought? #

A: No. Brain damage interferes with thinking, but this could mean:

1. The brain is the organ (meaning thinking happens in the brain), OR
2. The brain damage interferes with imagination (the object of understanding)

The existence of an either-or means the fact of interference alone cannot prove (1). By separate arguments showing understanding is immaterial and knows all bodies universally, we can eliminate (1) and conclude it must be (2).

Q: Why does Aristotle say understanding is being moved? #

A: In the De Anima Book 1, Aristotle proceeds dialectically through predecessors’ opinions. He attributes the view that “understanding is being moved” to those who held this opinion, not to himself. Thomas clarifies this is not Aristotle’s own doctrine but the doctrine of predecessors he’s examining.

Notable Quotes #

“The thing is singular when sensed or imagined, and universal when understood.” — Aristotle (cited by Berquist)

“A body is required for the action of understanding, not as an organ by which such an action is exercised, but by reason of the object.” — Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, Q. 75, A. 3 (addressed in lecture)

“The phantasm is compared to the understanding as color to sight.” — Aristotle (cited by Berquist via Thomas Aquinas)

“To need a body does not take away the understanding of being subsistent. Otherwise, the animal would not be something subsisting, because it needs exterior sensibles to sense.” — Thomas Aquinas (response to third objection, discussed in lecture)