Animal Intelligence and Evolution/Creation

Umm, so animals do have souls, because they breath? I wouldn't dare disagree with theological definitions of soul or spirit based on established belief systems, but I was thinking along the more everyday, commonplace idea of a soul that most people seem to have. When people use the word "soul", it seems to mean "essence", some intangible yet crucial quality of people that makes them alive, intelligent, and feeling. Consider the word "soulless", which implies an unfeeling nature (not a non-breathing nature). At the same time, people seem to generally think that it's the soul that goes to heaven or hell. Ghosts for example are referred to as "lost souls" or "wandering souls." I couldn't begin to say what a philosopher or theologian of whatever faith would define these terms, but this is how I think ordinary, everyday people understand the term.This message has been edited by Aximili23, 02-13-2005 08:26 AM

Can you elaborate? Umm, are you saying that animal intelligence research supports the biblical references to talking animals?

quote:

---

Can you elaborate? Umm, are you saying that animal intelligence research supports the biblical references to talking animals?

---

I was making a joke. Certainly, the serpent did speak to Eve and she understood what he said.
What can exist without even the simplest form of communication.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Albert, I agree!

or soul just means breath and nothing more? there is a hill in england that has a long name to it, each word means hill in the previous language ... so it is hill hill hill hill when translated.

Perhaps. But the most useful definition, and the one that's relevant to this thread, is the definition that people actually believe and use.I knew I shouldn't have inserted that bit about "What is a soul?" Now people aren't paying attention to my original post.

Everybody, if you want to talk about what a soul is or means let's propose a new topic.Thanks.

---

I don't have to reconcile it in the first place. Infact, evolution is more easy to swallow than saying we are just another animal.For me, it's a double standard, and is incredulous to deny how much more consciously endowed we are as conscious beings. (And is therefore denying the inductive and vast amount of evidence, and it's proper conclusion)Now usually I'm told of some vague ability that an animal may or may not have, but never have I been shown the equivalent. For example, show me an animal that could paint the Sistine chapel ceiling, to look like how the animal sees it (the equivalent).Show me an animal that has created an engine, or has any kind of written language. Show me an animal that can reason, and do science, and that can understand the various concepts of relativity.Thje truth is - that your ignoring a HUGE amount of inductive reality pertaining to just how far above them we are.So I'm far from reconcling anything, because I'd be denying reality to believe that we are just another animal.Untill I see the animal's equivalent of New York - a city humans built, and animals probably live in, this just isn't convincing. Slothful induction.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-13-2005 15:35 AM

what I see is a vast number of very "dumb" creatures and fewer and fewer more intelligent ones.if we could honestly rate the intelligence of each animal I would not be surprised to see a typical decay type distribution, with human (for now) intelligence at the y intercept and then more numbers of species with lower intelligence levels. (from http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/...rt/lectures/lecture2/sld023.htm)this would have to do with the relative benefit of intelligence from an evolutionary point of view: are very intelligent creatures necessarily better adapted than ones just more intelligent than their {predator\prey} relationship requires?I would also expect this distribution to hold within subcategories, ie primates would have their distribution, and cetacians would have theirs.certainly it is easy for us to see intelligence in other primates, but that may just be more a matter of our understanding it than the actual levels.another one for your list is the snow macaque in japan, where inventive behavior has been observed a number of times (and in one female in particular):
Blue Planet Biomes - Japanese Macaque (I love that picture)also see
http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/...v/dautenhahn/node4.html
for a discussion on intelligence in other animals.{edit spelling}This message has been edited by RAZD, 02-13-2005 18:27 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

True, but this is an argument about quantitative differences, not qualitative differences. There's no uniquely human characteristic that cannot be found in some degree in a non-human animal. I cannot. But I can show you an animal that uses a hammer and anvil. I cannot. But I can show you animals with "spoken" language. I can. Many animals use problem-solving as part of their every day life. I see these as extensions of reason. This is an absurd argument to me, since there are so many animals that do things so much better than humans. I could easily counter:Until I see the human's equivalent of long-range navigation...orUntil I see the human's equivalent of identifying hundreds of poisionous vs. non-poisionous plants...orUntil I see the human's equivalent of echo-location...Not that humans cannot do these things, but they generally need technology, and they represent trained skills of a few individuals within our species. This is little different from the chimpanzees that communicate by sign language and paint impressionistically when given the opportunity.

As in binoculars/telescopes?The fact is, that the traits you mention don't particularly show consciousness at our level. They just don't. Animals may have abilities but to say we are the same requires a leap of imagination. I expect the reason why I am sitting on a PC, and the animals aren't is that I am consciously endowed beyond they are.The fact is that the amount of evidence for us being different from the other trillion species - is seen all around us. Look around - you made it all, from your chair to your ceiling.We shape the world around us and produce technology, and are aware of ourselves, more than any other critter on the planet. Do you deny this in favour of a chimp messing with paint?Even babies can mess with paint. It doesn't matter, because what Genesis says is true - we will become as gods, and we do have dominion. I know you don't like it - but this argument really does favour Genesis, and Ive always known it. In the same way evolution has far more evidence than anything else, this just does favour the bible I'm afraid. Now I'm being very honest.I have seen all the examples of how animals have intelligence - and are to some point aware of themselves. Do I deny this? No. DO I think they are conscious beings, that can create technology and communicate with us at a completely conscious level, that they could pray to God and be a conscious person like him? No.Now in small numbers, we might not do aswell, but I'm sure there must be species that have been around for the same amount of time as us. For example, if we share a common ancestry with chimps, then they've been around a while - and where is their technology?I'm afraid there isn't an easy counter - because the obvious conclusion is that Genesis is right, and your argument is slothful induction, because you have to ignore the vast amount of evidence that shows just how different we are. But deep down - I think you know it.

Probably not, unless you have some method of determining a course from Argentina to the Equator using a pair of binoculars; but that is besides the point, since I conceded that humans use technology to boost their skills to the levels of animals. I never said "we are the same" - did you even read my post? I said we were quantitatively different, but qualitatively the same. What do you mean by "consciousness"? Do you mean "self-awareness"? Because extensive behavioral studies have shown that some animals have self-awareness. Then again, that may be a moot point, since you seem to state that animals are conscious, just that you are conscious to a greater extreme than they are.Like I said, quantitative, not qualitative. I said humans are different than all other animals. So are humpback whales, and echidnae, and chihuahuas, and my favorite, the naked mole rat. We're all different than all other species, otherwise we wouldn't be different species.Your problem doesn't appear to be with us being "different" or not, it appears to be with us being "special" or not. I didn't make my chair or my ceiling. Chimps produce technology such as hammer and anvil. Of course this is quantitatively different from a Boeing 777, but is it qualitatively different? If you had to crack a nut in the jungle, what would you use?I don't deny we are different; but there is more than a chimp "messing in paint" when a chimp representatively paints an object and then names it as such with sign language. Your argument of "difference" doesn't favor Genesis, since no one would argue that humans are the same as all other species. You are arguing that humans are "special", and if you had any evidence that humans were "special" other than a book written by humans that wanted to feel "special", you might have a case.Your argument from "obviousness" and labeling your opponents' arguments as "slothful induction" doesn't stand as evidence. I guess I didn't realize that God was a person. In any case, you likely have hit upon the only qualitative difference between humans and other species, and that is that some humans worship gods. (Truthfully this may be occurring in other species and we may not be able to detect it.) You're genuinely misconstruing evolution here. Evolution theory would not predicted that chimps, or any other species, would develop technology at the same rate as humans. (Though chimps do have culture, technology, and adornment in the wild.) Chimps may not have accumulated a set of mutations to permit them the capacity to do so, or there may not have existed selective force for the maintainence of technology abilities (especially with humans already filling that niche), or perhaps chimps are too damn wise to spread their culture across the planet in such a destructive fashion. In any case, you might as well have asked why sharks haven't developed interstellar travel yet, given that they've been on the planet longer than we have. Absurd. Like I said before, perhaps you should reread my post you responded to. I'm not saying humans aren't different from all other species, so essentially your whole post is a strawman argument. Your real argument is that humans are "special", not different.You really need to provide some meat to your argument that humans are the "special" species. Saying it is "obvious" doesn't cut it, and neither does your incorrect "slothful induction" counter.Perhaps to me it is "obvious" that God doesn't exist, and I simply find anyone believing so to be suffering from "slothful induction" because they fail to see the reality of an absolute absence of evidence for His existence. Or maybe it is "obvious" to me that the Creation account of another religion is the truth.

Erm, now who's strawmanning? My real argument, is exactly what I said, thanks. And now I'll explain the logical differences.You say that " I said humans are different than all other animals. So are humpback whales, and echidnae, and chihuahuas, and my favorite, the naked mole rat "Humans are not different from other animals, in an equivalent way as these other organisms.A difference we have, which no other organism shares equivalently, is that we create a world in which other animals live in. Humpback wales, don't create their own environment, nor echidnae or chihuahuas. Therefore, show me an equivalent difference.This means we are a unique species. I really don't, because when I type, look at the screen and press send, I'm completing my argument. If you cannot see the unique difference of humans, when compared with whales and such - then you are ignoring evidence all around you. And that's false. You can't teach a chimp to write, paint, create engines or MOST of what we do. (Most). Also - I've shown that chimps have been around as long as we, and I didn't mention evolution. My point is that if we are different in quality - then where is the quality of crucial difference, in the chimp world? They remain without technology. Please show their tools with a link. [emphasis mine]Lol. Erm, I really think this proves my point about that fallacy I mentioned. If you can't see this difference then I'm very shocked. No, but my chair, clothes, PC and human world I'm sitting in, certainly does show we're unique, and how all this evidence has to be ignored(hence the fallacy). Simply show one organism that has produced anything as bizarre as a PC, television, or even one piece of technologically advanced equipment - after being on earth - in large numbers, for millions of years.My argument from obviousness, is simply what it is.-- Also, we know right and wrong, and think logically, in a way far beyond any other species can, when compared to all other species.What does a dog do which is overwhelmingly unique compared to other animals, in a way which is equivalent to that of a human creating cities on earth? Please answer.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-13-2005 21:00 AM

Pink, Mike, I'd say there is about zero chance of you settling this.At present you are both doing the equivalent of "It's obvious". Well, it isn't to the other side.If there is any hope of making progress it might be in difining terms, especially "special" and "different".good luck

Gee whiz, I'm sorry... I totally misconstrued your argument when I used the word "special", when I should have said "uniquely different". (Have you looked up the meaning of the word "special" lately?) Sounds like "special" to me... Not unique. It may be "obvious" to you, but I don't see city-building as making humans "uniquely different". First, many species build "cities", from ants to bees to prairie dogs to naked mole rats. And yes, other species inhabit these "cities". Some ants even keep another species, aphids, as a sort of domestic livestock: Other species "create their own environment", and even keep and tend livestock. Environment building as a uniquely human feature has been refuted. Here's a layman's article on Chimp Culture that discusses termite fishing and hammer/anvil, as well as other tool use. Some excerpts: The tool use is not passed on genetically, it is passed on culturally, and therefore qualifies as technology. The article is based on a large body of research, including giving captive, naive chimps tools that are used by wild chimps. These chimps do not develop tool use unless taught. Technology is not uniquely human. I do not think it is a fallacy for a couple of reasons:First, you haven't established that a hammer and anvil are qualitatively different from a PC, you've only said it is "obvious".Second, if you, a human being, were raised in isolation of contemporary society, would you be conceive, design, and manufacture, a chair, clothes, PC, car, and a Boeing 777? Or would you be cracking nuts with a hammer and anvil? Truthfully, can you make any of those things now?Would you be able to conceive of any of these things if you were born just 200 years ago?You speak as though the manufacture of all of these are an inherent human ability, when if separated from modern human civilization by space or time, the ability breaks down.So, when you argue it is "obvious" that humans are "uniquely different" because you are sitting at a PC, you are also stating that you are uniquely different from humans from a century ago, let alone humans during the time of Genesis. Right. According to your logic, not a single person in the Bible was uniquely different from other animals, because they were unable to produce "a PC, television, or even one piece of technologically advanced equipment."Perhaps. Again, you describe a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative difference. I'm not arguing against quantitative differences. Dogs engage in interspecies pack behavior, to the point that they will sacrifice their own life for a member of another species. Exactly.

Thing about inductive reasoning is that the conclusions are not really proven by the premises/arguments. It can depend on personal interpretation, and on which bits of the evidence one would like to focus on. And very often, the inferred conclusion can exceed beyond what the evidence says. Inductive reasoning is like pattern recognition - you look at the data and make a generalization. But the only valid conclusion is a statement/description of the observed pattern. You can't use inductive reasoning to state what the pattern means. In this case, you can use inductive reasoning to say that humans are vastly more intelligent or sophisticated than animals. But it doesn't follow from this that humans are therefore qualitatively different or special compared to animals.Even in the link your provided on slothful induction, it states that "About all you can do in such a case is to point to the strength of the inference."