Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do animals have souls?
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 303 (321229)
06-13-2006 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
10-15-2003 6:53 PM


crashfrog writes
quote:
I mean if we're going to talk about souls don't we need to know what they are first?
Consider that a soul is the part of you that continue to exist after you are long gone. You can take this as to mean the memories you left behind could be your soul. Perhaps your soul could be some kind of monument that reminds other beings of your once existence.
So, I suppose some animal have souls and some don't. This could also mean some people have souls and some don't.
Where some people might see a problem with this definition is you'd have to accept that your soul might not be immortal, unless you've done something to make yourself legendary. Hitler, for sure, has an immortal soul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 10-15-2003 6:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 06-13-2006 9:02 PM rgb has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 303 (321259)
06-13-2006 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by rgb
06-13-2006 7:02 PM


Consider that a soul is the part of you that continue to exist after you are long gone.
All parts of me will continue to exist after I'm long gone. The atoms of which I am composed will find their seperate ways into other organisms; possibly even other human beings. Maybe even my distant ancestors.
Could you be more specific about which parts you're referring to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by rgb, posted 06-13-2006 7:02 PM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by rgb, posted 06-14-2006 12:37 PM crashfrog has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 123 of 303 (321356)
06-14-2006 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by 2ice_baked_taters
06-13-2006 5:56 PM


Yet all that we do comes from a place or thing we cannot observe.
If you cant observe it how do you know its coming from there?
Funny to me how many readily accept a definition such as force is and reject the same basic concept when observing a very similar though more complicated phenomenon.
A phenomenon such as...?
I remined you that forces can be observed, and therefore defined scientificaly, and you said that a soul cant be defined scientificaly -
The term soul describes that which science cannot define.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 06-13-2006 5:56 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 06-16-2006 5:40 AM kalimero has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 124 of 303 (321411)
06-14-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by 2ice_baked_taters
06-13-2006 5:56 PM


What he showed me was someones idea of what a test for self-awareness is. Yes I have waved it. To assume this is definitive is silly.
what the hell does that even mean? how is it silly to give an example of a test, you asked for? you have no basis for rejecting this other than "i don't like it" thats whats silly
His effort to back himself up was to give me someone elses opinion.
There is no hard data to back a question of this nature up. It is all opinion.
that animals have self-awareness? or what? you arn't making any effort at all to answer anything
You are a rather passionate individual. I cannot observe your mind.
no that is frustration over your non-answers
You said it...I didn't. We cannot observe anything abstract for that matter. Yet all that we do comes from a place or thing we cannot observe. Funny to me how many readily accept a definition such as force is and reject the same basic concept when observing a very similar though more complicated phenomenon.
i hear words but they seem more like buzzing than anything. i said souls are not real since there is no evidence for them, people seem to have different meanings for a soul, so we can;t even define it.
the brain is where everything stems from we know this from evidence.
do you even know how we detect forces? or are you using it in the scientific way or your made up definition of you being a "force"?
forces are detectible from the affects of forces, such as gravity pulling things to the center of say a planet, i'm starting to wonder if you deny forces even though we know they exist pretty easyly
all i have to say is man, you need to get off the acid you're almost as bad as brad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 06-13-2006 5:56 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

rgb
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 303 (321454)
06-14-2006 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by crashfrog
06-13-2006 9:02 PM


crashfrog writes
quote:
All parts of me will continue to exist after I'm long gone.
While it is true that you are made up of individual atoms and such, it is not true that they are necessarily you. You are a combination of the individual parts, and even your individual parts are made of little individual parts, but once they are disesembled they seized to be part of you.
(Ahem... division fallacy)
quote:
Could you be more specific about which parts you're referring to?
Crashfrog, I feel that we somehow have gotten on the wrong foot. You asked this question even after I gave an example of what my definition might mean. Refer back to my previous post for the answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 06-13-2006 9:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 06-14-2006 3:10 PM rgb has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 126 of 303 (321489)
06-14-2006 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by rgb
06-14-2006 12:37 PM


While it is true that you are made up of individual atoms and such, it is not true that they are necessarily you.
They're me, now.
Of course, this gets into the Ship of Theseus problem.
You are a combination of the individual parts, and even your individual parts are made of little individual parts, but once they are disesembled they seized to be part of you.
Which was sort of my point. There aren't any parts of me that persist any longer than all the rest of the parts. So which parts were you referring to?
Memories? Memories in other people's heads aren't a part of me to begin with. They're a part of them. My own memories don't survive my death any longer than anything else does, so they can't be my "soul."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by rgb, posted 06-14-2006 12:37 PM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by rgb, posted 06-15-2006 1:35 PM crashfrog has not replied

rgb
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 303 (321900)
06-15-2006 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by crashfrog
06-14-2006 3:10 PM


crashfrog writes
quote:
Memories? Memories in other people's heads aren't a part of me to begin with. They're a part of them. My own memories don't survive my death any longer than anything else does, so they can't be my "soul."
You could see it that way or you could see it the way the character Achiles in the movie Troy saw it.
Anyway, I don't really believe that's what our soul is. As a matter of fact, I really know or care what our soul is. It was just a thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 06-14-2006 3:10 PM crashfrog has not replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 128 of 303 (322123)
06-16-2006 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by kalimero
06-14-2006 6:59 AM


A phenomenon such as...?
I remined you that forces can be observed, and therefore defined scientificaly, and you said that a soul cant be defined scientificaly
-
Sorry you lost a bit of reality there. No forces can be observed. All we have ever done is observe "thier" effects. Show me force. You cannot.
Let us be more to the point. We have quantitatively measured the physical effects of predictable phenomenon we have labled forces. A force is just an abstract way to describe unique physical interations. Though quantization of our interations with the physical world have not been accomplished it hardly neggates that each of us is a force in the exact same sense. The difference with us is that we are simply not as easily predictable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by kalimero, posted 06-14-2006 6:59 AM kalimero has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by nwr, posted 06-16-2006 9:54 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 129 of 303 (322170)
06-16-2006 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by 2ice_baked_taters
06-16-2006 5:40 AM


Sorry you lost a bit of reality there. No forces can be observed. All we have ever done is observe "thier" effects. Show me force. You cannot.
If you want to talk like that, then nothing is ever observed.
Forces are measured. In common scientific speech, a measurement is an observation. Thus, under the ordinary scientific use of "observe", forces are indeed observed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 06-16-2006 5:40 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 06-16-2006 12:03 PM nwr has replied
 Message 132 by kalimero, posted 06-16-2006 2:49 PM nwr has not replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 130 of 303 (322253)
06-16-2006 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by nwr
06-16-2006 9:54 AM


If you want to talk like that, then nothing is ever observed.
So if I follow you: Observation in your mind, defines our reality for us? I am observing you. I am aware of you. You obviously understand that.
Forces are measured. In common scientific speech, a measurement is an observation. Thus, under the ordinary scientific use of "observe", forces are indeed observed.
By this same definition I am observing the force of you.
Unless:
You are saying that the only scientific observation that can define reality is through measurement? Is this the point you are trying to make? If it cannot be measured it cannot be known?
Are you saying that all other observations other than those done by measurment are invalid? Are you saying the only way we can observe and define force is through measurement? Are you saying that my observation of two cars colliding is invalid as an observation of forces at work? Are you saying that a force is an abstract idea used to describe a phenomenon of interactions between physical things or are you telling me you believe in the existence of actual forces?
What you seem to be saying is that if it cannot be meassured you do not believe in it? is this right? I am getting an extemely mixed message here. I would appreciate some clarification if you would.
Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by nwr, posted 06-16-2006 9:54 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by nwr, posted 06-16-2006 1:27 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
 Message 133 by kalimero, posted 06-16-2006 3:00 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 131 of 303 (322307)
06-16-2006 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by 2ice_baked_taters
06-16-2006 12:03 PM


So if I follow you: Observation in your mind, defines our reality for us?
That is not what I said. However, "reality" is our word, part of our language. In the sense that we define the meaning of our words, you could say that we define reality.
Forces are measured. In common scientific speech, a measurement is an observation. Thus, under the ordinary scientific use of "observe", forces are indeed observed.
By this same definition I am observing the force of you.
No. Your use of "the force of you" is idiosyncratic, so is not at all the "same definition."
Unless:
You are saying that the only scientific observation that can define reality is through measurement? Is this the point you are trying to make? If it cannot be measured it cannot be known?
Actually, I am taking observation as a kind of measurement. When you look around and see something, you see it by virtue of measuring activity that your brain and visual system are undertaking.
However, I would not say that if it cannot be measured, it cannot be known. We do know mathematics, but not by measurement/observation.
Are you saying that my observation of two cars colliding is invalid as an observation of forces at work?
No, but you are saying that. After all, you said:
No forces can be observed. All we have ever done is observe "thier" effects.
By the same reasoning, no cars (colliding or otherwise) can ever be observed. All you can do is experience the effects of photons impinging on your retina.
What you seem to be saying is that if it cannot be meassured you do not believe in it? is this right?
No, I haven't said that. The ability of people to believe is not completely constrained by what they observe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 06-16-2006 12:03 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 06-17-2006 2:36 AM nwr has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 132 of 303 (322335)
06-16-2006 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by nwr
06-16-2006 9:54 AM


If you want to talk like that, then nothing is ever observed.
Forces are measured. In common scientific speech, a measurement is an observation. Thus, under the ordinary scientific use of "observe", forces are indeed observed.
Ahhhh....thats what I wanted to say (Its sooooo obvious) ,
I guess squirrles are fasrter that cats.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by nwr, posted 06-16-2006 9:54 AM nwr has not replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 133 of 303 (322337)
06-16-2006 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by 2ice_baked_taters
06-16-2006 12:03 PM


By this same definition I am observing the force of you.
Is this some type of Monty Python sort of logic? 'If all forces are observed, then all that is obsrved are forces'.
http://pressurecooker.phil.cmu.edu/logic.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 06-16-2006 12:03 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 134 of 303 (322488)
06-17-2006 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by nwr
06-16-2006 1:27 PM


You have not addressed the point.
You want me to believe that if I cannot observe it, it cannot be proven. I tell you that a force cannot be observed.
Then you want me to accept that forces exist by our observation of the tracks they leave behind. So I tell you we are a force and that I know we are there by the tracks we leave behind. Evidence of force at work.
Then you tell me this is different. I am still waiting to hear your justification for one observation being acceptable and the other not.
You still have not made your position clear.
If we are not a force then what explanation for the phenomenon that is us do you have to offer?
I see no difference between the abstract idea of force that science uses and the concept of us as a force. We are simply "a force of a different color" if you will.
No, I haven't said that. The ability of people to believe is not completely constrained by what they observe.
In this case I was asking you directly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by nwr, posted 06-16-2006 1:27 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by nwr, posted 06-17-2006 9:54 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 135 of 303 (322518)
06-17-2006 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by 2ice_baked_taters
06-17-2006 2:36 AM


You have not addressed the point.
You want me to believe that if I cannot observe it, it cannot be proven. I tell you that a force cannot be observed.
I addressed that by pointing out that you are using "observe" too narrowly.
Then you want me to accept that forces exist by our observation of the tracks they leave behind.
Those are your words, not mine. We judge a force by its effects, not whether there are any tracks.
So I tell you we are a force and that I know we are there by the tracks we leave behind.
And this is just silly.
We judge a force by its effects. It does not follow that anything having effects is a force. We judge a force by very specific effects. A person can exert a force, and thus have similar effects. That does not make the person a force.
If you insist on inventing your own meanings for words, then you limit your ability to communicate.
I see no difference between the abstract idea of force that science uses and the concept of us as a force.
You can remedy that problem by studying some physics.
If we are not a force then what explanation for the phenomenon that is us do you have to offer?
I actually have a fairly elaborate theory of human cognition. However, nobody much seems interested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 06-17-2006 2:36 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 06-17-2006 1:33 PM nwr has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024