|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Do animals have souls? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5878 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Thank Mr. RickJB
Now, with regard to the topic I would propose animals having degrees of consciousness that are dependent on their particular brain function. That would seem a very likely probability. I have those same thoughts.My ownly reservation there is that we know little enough about our own kind and there may be states of conciousness living things opperate in that we are not aware of. It isn't like we can have an in depth conversation with other living things to ask them thier opinion. A clinical experiment does not touch the meaning of things which other living things may very well experience as we do or perhaps meaningful but in different ways. By meaningful I mean in an emotional, moral, value sense. On this scale humans would qualify as being particularly self-aware. Yes, under our currently self center understanding. We place ourselves as the benchmark.
I see no need for a "soul". One could place me in the "materialist" camp, I suppose I very much see your point. It can be seen that soul is not needed for the biological process to function. I am currious...you reffer to"a" soul. Does this mean you see soul as a component? I identify soul with self. We get down to: does the "self" continue? Hence your reluctance to use the term soul. I have followed your line of thinking and it leads me down this path. 1)What does your body need to live?2)What behaviour do we exhibit that goes far beyond the basic needs of the body. None of this activity is needed. Curiousity, Wonder, Greed, Hate ect. All these things and the behaviour that arises from them are not neccesary just as you see soul not to be. We also experience these things yet can exercise control or restraint. I experience....I choose. This is not needed for biological functioning to take place. So when you when you say that "a soul" is not needed in my view I am not needed. When I follow your line of thingking there is no "I" "I" know this not to be the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
When I say I see no need for a "soul", I refer to the concept of a soul as an eternal manifestation that exists beyond the physical.
I prefer to speak of "a self" or "an ego" as they are terms with less theological weight. My ego is, I feel, a product of my own biological brain function. When that ceases, "I" cease. It's the same with other animals - their consciousness ends with their death. But don't get me wrong, however! This is not to say that I don't value the human experience. Neither do I see humans as an exemplar - we are, after all, blind to many things that other animals can perceive... So to sum up my views: 1. Many animals display some form of consciousness. We are one such animal.2. None of us animals has an eternal "soul". Our "ego" is bound by our our own physcial existence (although one might envision technology being able one day to store or host an "ego" function).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kalimero Member (Idle past 2472 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: |
What behaviour do we exhibit that goes far beyond the basic needs of the body. None of this activity is needed.
Actually, these emotions (Curiousity, Wonder, Greed, Hate ect.) are an essential part of the survival of social creatures like us - maybe not as basic as a heart - but still essential. The ability to interact with other individuals is crucial for survival.Curiousity, Wonder, Greed, Hate ect. All these things and the behaviour that arises from them are not neccesary just as you see soul not to be. I dont think he meant that a soul is not essential for our survival, but that the concept of a soul is not essential in order to explain things such as emotion and conscience - I tend to agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5878 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Actually, these emotions (Curiousity, Wonder, Greed, Hate ect.) are an essential part of the survival of social creatures like us - maybe not as basic as a heart - but still essential. The ability to interact with other individuals is crucial for survival. I do not see it this way. Your above statement has no basis in fact other than peoples assumption of reasons to explain the phenomenon of socialization. I would like you to explain to me how you feel these things are essential. I simply do not see the need for them. How do you explain the survival of countless other animals in this line of thinking? Would you catagorize the ability to choose ones path freely as a social skill that is essential? The concept of free will is equally as non essential as the concept of soul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5878 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
When I say I see no need for a "soul", I refer to the concept of a soul as an eternal manifestation that exists beyond the physical. So your view would be the same then for the concept of free will?What would be your take in the concept of free will? I prefer to speak of "a self" or "an ego" as they are terms with less theological weight. My ego is, I feel, a product of my own biological brain function. When that ceases, "I" cease. It's the same with other animals - their consciousness ends with their death. "I" am curious how you can speak of ego in the possesive or speak of things in the possesive in general. How is a biological chemical reaction inherantly different from any other? Could not all funtioning systems both biological and non biological be thought of in the same way? If not, then what is the concept of "I"
So to sum up my views: 1. Many animals display some form of consciousness. We are one such animal.2. None of us animals has an eternal "soul". Our "ego" is bound by our our own physcial existence (although one might envision technology being able one day to store or host an "ego" function). Please correct me if I have misunderstood.1)Animals display biological funcions. I will not use the term "we" you already explained as a function. 2)No animal has a soul. The phenomonon of "ego"= biological function So biological functions are bound by physical existence. Living things are relatively brief chemical reactions. What is "I"? "I" feel the need to refer to "you" as "biological function", as this is how "you" identify "yourself." Have "I" misunderstood? There are some biological funcions that claim to be causal effects but when "I" reffered to them this way they became offended. I do not wish to offend. Just to understand. I reffer to myself as a soul. You may call me taters
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
2Ice writes: How do you explain the survival of countless other animals in this line of thinking? They fit perfectly well. All animals use social behaviors to mate, for example. Some, like Dogs, co-operate in packs in order to hunt. Social interaction of one form or enother is essential to all animals. We are no different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
2ice writes: How is a biological chemical reaction inherantly different from any other? How is one oil painting any different from another - they are both formed from paint and canvas aren't they? We all have the same chemical function, but, for reasons which are as yet not well understood to science we appear to use those functions to build individual "egos". I suppose another good analogy would be the way in which no two snowflakes are structurally alike...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5878 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
They fit perfectly well. All animals use social behaviors to mate , Rape happens all the time in all species. What is social about it?The concept of social itself. Explain this better. Some, like Dogs, co-operate in packs in order to hunt. Social interaction of one form or enother is essential to all animals. We are no different. If I have understood you correctly: Social interaction requires egoEgo is a biological function. So social interactions are biological funtions of chemical reactions identified as living things? Chemical reactions co-operate? There are a lot of assumptions there. I am simply trying to understand some fundamental basis for this particular function of a chemical reaction that I have been observing. The concept of "I" is not necessary for social interaction. Social interaction is simple biological funtion. Am I understanding?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5878 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
How is one oil painting any different from another - they are both formed from paint and canvas aren't they? Yes this is a good question. How are they different?
We all have the same chemical function, but, for reasons which are as yet not well understood to science we appear to use those functions to build individual "egos". I suppose another good analogy would be the way in which no two snowflakes are structurally alike... Again as I understand the biological function I am now observing there is no need for the concept of "self" / "ego" / "I". It is not necessary to explain the biological function. Just random variations of biological function as one function ineracts with another.It makes much more sense if terms such as "we" or "I" are omitted, Would you agree?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kalimero Member (Idle past 2472 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: |
Would you catagorize the ability to choose ones path freely as a social skill that is essential? If by free you mean: #2 Free Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Websteror in other words - independent of all factors - then I dont think this even exists. The concept of free will is equally as non essential as the concept of soul. I agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kalimero Member (Idle past 2472 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: |
Rape happens all the time in all species. What is social about it? 1) I wouldnt say 'all species', only the ones capable of agreeing to have sex. 2) Rape is a social phenomena - thats whats so social about it (definition of 'social' below).
The concept of social itself. Explain this better. Social Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster#4, also take a look at 'social Darwinism'. or maybe this:Social - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
You cut to the chase! I like that!
2ice writes: Chemical reactions co-operate? Yes, I suppose so! All forms of life are essentially a hugely complex combination of chemical structures. One could also talk of matter as being little more than electrical charge, but of course the true picture is far more complex..
2ice writes: There are a lot of assumptions there. Not *too* many! We know the chemical compositions and processes of life very well. The processes of the brain, I grant you, are still far from well understood, but science never stops...!
2ice writes: It makes much more sense if terms such as "we" or "I" are omitted, would you agree? Not really, since an anthropologist might well argue that the ego itself is a mechanism used for survival. By giving us the ability to reflect and build on past experience our ego allows us to learn new things and to adapt to our environment. Humans have been spectacularly successful as a species due to their ability to adapt and learn (as well as breed). Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5878 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Not really, since an anthropologist might well argue that the ego itself is a mechanism used for survival. So this interaction is happening between two mechanisms of survival?The concept of ego appears to fit only as it relates to mechanism. The concept of self is not necessary. By giving us the ability to reflect and build on past experience our ego allows us to learn new things and to adapt to our environment. It would make much more sense without the use of posessives. There really is no need for them.
Humans have been spectacularly successful as a species due to their ability to adapt and learn (as well as breed) So this mechanism is defined by the success of the chemical process?
Not *too* many! We know the chemical compositions and processes of life very well. The processes of the brain, I grant you, are still far from well understood, but science never stops...! This should not matter as the function of the brain is nothing more than a part of a chemical proccess. All evidence that exists points to this. Any further proccesses or mechanisms discovered still would not require the need for the concept of self. All that is required to explain the interactions are the concepts of mechanisms and chemical processes.I am trying to understand what I am relating to. If I understand correctly I am experiencing interaction with the effects of a proccess of chemical reactions. You cut to the chase! I like that! I have always been a cut to the chase kind of soul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5878 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
The concept of free will is equally as non essential as the concept of soul.
I agree. What is "I" The concept of "I" is equally as non essential as both free will and soul.What is an explanation for the mechanism of this interaction taking place? What is it's essential definition? I am trying to understand what I am experiencing. I understand the links the interaction led to. However they are from other interactions. I am interested in understanding this one and the nature of what it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
2ice writes: The concept of ego appears to fit only as it relates to mechanism. The concept of self is not necessary. Well certainly life does not depend on conciousness! I would argue that consciousness serves as a beneficial adaptation.
2ice writes: This should not matter as the function of the brain is nothing more than a part of a chemical proccess. Well, fair enough - one might well disregard ego and simply point to chemistry as the first cause. This leads us to an interesting point, however. Some scientists, including the likes of Roger Penrose, have suggested that the true origins of consciousness lie at the quantum level...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024