How Would A Brain Transplant Work?

[kafka]

Well this is a difficult one. From what I've read about the brain, it seems an even more essential and vital to the body than even the heart organ, so I do not think a transplant is even possible. But if it were. . .

Human nature of made up of three elements, namely, soul-body-spirit which is a reflection of the Trinity.

Soul is immaterial made up of will-intellect-memory.
Body is material.
Spirit is the close connection, interaction and living union of the body and soul. The ancients used the word spirit, or breath of life and those qualities that pertain to life and to the cooperation of body and soul, such as heart and mind and emotion, consciousness etc. for example Hebrews:

{4:12} For the Word of God is living and effective: more piercing than any two-edged sword, reaching to the division even between the soul and the spirit, even between the joints and the marrow, and so it discerns the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

the life of the body proceeds from the presence of the soul. And spirit proceeds from the living union between soul and body as from one principle.

Now if a new organ of the brain would be transfered I think the presence of the soul (will, intellect, memory) would attempt to rebuild or restructure it into a replica of the old removed one. The brain has placticity so it might be able to be shaped by the knowledge and memories stored up in the soul, but without the previous sense data, emotions, etc. a disruption of the spirit (close connection between body and soul) may ensue and make it impossible to recover. So one would essentially would retain the uniqueness of personhood according to previous acts yet not be able to fully express or recapture it in his body, spirit, life, emotions, etc.

When we receive our new resurrected bodies from God, I think he will create them in such a way that they will fit perfectly with all the unique goodness of our souls so a traumatic restructuring or readjustment will not be necessary. And resurrected bodies will also have special qualities.

[jeffpugh]

Nvm.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Sacred Music Man

[ardillacid]

If only a brain transplant were feasible for certain people here now

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' date='13 June 2010 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1276457044' post='2128180']
Now if a new organ of the brain would be transfered I think the presence of the soul (will, intellect, memory) would attempt to rebuild or restructure it into a replica of the old removed one. The brain has placticity so it might be able to be shaped by the knowledge and memories stored up in the soul, but without the previous sense data, emotions, etc. a disruption of the spirit (close connection between body and soul) may ensue and make it impossible to recover. So one would essentially would retain the uniqueness of personhood according to previous acts yet not be able to fully express or recapture it in his body, spirit, life, emotions, etc.
[/quote]
I rethought this. I do not think this is good thinking on my part. I think the problem is beyond me. The brain is among the most complex things God has created. And who can clearly explain the living interaction and connection between the body and soul? Impossible.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='apparently' date='13 June 2010 - 10:52 AM' timestamp='1276444325' post='2128082']
none the less, the fictional story does portray the limitations of brain transfer.

[/quote]
I disagree inasmuch as Frankenstein is fiction and has zero basis in reality. It portrays one possible scenario among an unknowable number of potential scenarios.

More importantly, there really was no "brain transfer" in Frankenstein. There was (according to Shelley's story) the creation of a new life from many unconnected pieces, based on pseudoscience which was reasonable at the time, but which we know now to be false (animating principle).

[add]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='13 June 2010 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1276475031' post='2128311']
I disagree inasmuch as Frankenstein is fiction and has zero basis in reality. It portrays one possible scenario among an unknowable number of potential scenarios.
[color="#ff0000"]
and this tread is based on reality?[/color]

More importantly, there really was no "brain transfer" in Frankenstein. There was (according to Shelley's story) the creation of a new life from many unconnected pieces, based on pseudoscience which was reasonable at the time, but which we know now to be false (animating principle).
[/quote]

[color="#ff0000"]didn't Egor, steal a criminal brain instead of a honest brain or was that just in the movie[/color]


[color="#ff0000"]this tread is no brainer [/color]

[Mark of the Cross]

Forget all the chatter. I want a new brain marinated in serotonin.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='apparently' date='13 June 2010 - 07:36 PM' timestamp='1276475775' post='2128327']
[color="#ff0000"]didn't Egor, steal a criminal brain instead of a honest brain or was that just in the movie[/color]


[color="#ff0000"]this tread is no brainer [/color]
[/quote]
Igor is not part of the text. Shelley doesn't address anything about where the parts came from besides the fact that they were all cadavers.

[Socrates]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='12 June 2010 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1276389837' post='2127873']

Socrates is probably more opposite of me in terms of temperament than Winchester is, but I think Winchester might actually find the transformation intellectually interesting. Socrates would simply be mad as heck to find himself in a woman's body, especially mine.
[/quote]

[add]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='13 June 2010 - 09:40 PM' timestamp='1276476002' post='2128334']
Igor is not part of the text. Shelley doesn't address anything about where the parts came from besides the fact that they were all cadavers.
[/quote]

[media][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ_pKqiB5Rg"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=dQ_pKqiB5Rg[/url][/media]

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='kafka' date='13 June 2010 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1276474064' post='2128295']
I rethought this. I do not think this is good thinking on my part. I think the problem is beyond me. The brain is among the most complex things God has created. And who can clearly explain the living interaction and connection between the body and soul? Impossible.
[/quote]

Kafka, you should read Rahner's [i]Spirit in the World[/i]. He does a spectacular job of dealing with the issue and balancing everything. I mentioned his view in my post on the first page when I talk about the scholastics since Rahner quotes the scholastics and begins there and then draws a few more conclusions. I think he is right in these conclusions though. In the book, he draws mostly from Aristotle's [i]De Anima[/i] and from Thomas's [i]Summa[/i]. It is spectacular. I did a short paper on it. If you want me to send you a copy, I can. I'd love to here what you have to say.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='apparently' date='13 June 2010 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1276478298' post='2128354']
[media][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ_pKqiB5Rg"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=dQ_pKqiB5Rg[/url][/media]
[/quote]
I highly recommend the original text. Pop media hasn't been kind to a very well written story.

[zunshynn]

This is basically a non-issue, because even if a brain transplant became a technologically easy thing to do, it would never be morally acceptable to remove the brain of a patient that wasn't dead, and the brain of a person that was dead would not be useful for a transplant because, well, the brain would be dead.

[Apotheoun]

From the [i]Man with Two Brains[/i]:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90iR2wWeojk[/media]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r4rS0yzQ1M[/media]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' date='13 June 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1276404331' post='2127986']
The mind and the brain are not synonymous. The mind/soul is the animating principle and I would argue is comprise of two different parts Intellect or rational soul and will or animal soul. The intellect is supposed to direct the will.
[/quote]
I've gotten a bit rusty in my Scholastic philosophy, but I don't think the "two different parts of the soul" or "rational soul/animal soul" bit jives with Thomistic thought.
The soul is the simple and immaterial form of the body's matter and cannot be composed of different parts. Intellect and will are two aspects or attributes of the human soul which are both shared with angels and God Himself, neither of which has an animal nature.

Of all creatures, only angels and humans have intellect and free will, properly understood. Free will means we are free moral agents, capable of choosing good or evil, which the lower animals are not. Will is not a lower attribute of the animals.