The soul -- does it exist?

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregP618:
It would appear that the general concensus of opinion is that animals act entirely based on primeaval instincts. Their instinct being to survive, and this being displayed in them protecting their territory, developing defence mechanisms against potential predators, developing ways to catch their prey etc. The big question appears to be whether the same can be applied to man?!

​

It would appear that some distinction has been made (and rightly so) between humans and animals. It's true that animals CAN be said to have a personality, perhaps in a similar way to humans, and this can, along with emotions, be termed a "soul". The soul and the physical body are what we use to relate to what we see around us in the physical world. The thing that sets animals apart from humans is that they have no God concious. This is the part of you that relates in the supernatural realm as opposed to the natural, and would be termed a "spirit". This is the part of you that is eternal and will go on after the physical body dies and can exist without the need for a physical form.

---

Well, that's a great theology and all, but it's still not based upon evidence of any kind.I think one of the major things that sets humans apart from the rest of the animals is self-awareness, and the ability to conceptualize far into the future. The part of self-awareness that religion has grown out of is that we are the only animal that knows ahead of time that we are going to die.The invention of a non-corporeal soul was a way for early people to explain why we had emotions and thoughts. Remember, for quite a long time, people thought that all thought and emotion resided in the heart, not the brain. People thought the brain existed to cool the blood. People also fear(ed) death, so the invention of a soul which lived on for all of eternity, beyond the death of the corporeal body, was a way to feel comforted.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
can you show that it effects there personality? i know that theyre behavior and methods of thinking change but i still think its the same person in there.

---

How do you define "same person"? What defines a person, other than their personality?There is a wonderful book I am reccomending to you called "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" by Oliver Sachs, which would help you understand a little better about neuroscience and the brain. It is a sensitive and intriguing collection of unusual case studies of people with different kinds of brain damage which explores what their lives and personalities were like and how they changed because of illness or trauma.Also consider the famous story of Phineas Gage: http://www-instruct.nmu.edu/psychology/mmacmill/gage_page/PGSTORY.HTM'Phineas Gage is probably the most famous patient to have survived severe damage to the brain. He is also the first patient from whom we learned something about he relation between personality and the function of the front parts of the brain.Phineas Gage was the foreman of a railway construction gang working for the contractors preparing the bed for the Rutland and Burlington Rail Road when, on 13th. September, 1848, an accidental explosion of a charge he had set blew his tamping iron through his head. The tamping iron (pictured below) was 3 feet 7 inches long, weighed 13 1/2 pounds, and was 1 1/4 inches in diameter at one end, tapering over a distance of about 1 foot to a diameter of 1/4 inch at the other.The tamping iron went in point first under his left cheek bone and out through the top of his head, landing about 25 to 30 yards behind him. Phineas was knocked over but may not have lost consciousness even though most of the front part of the left side of his brain was destroyed. He was treated by Dr. Harlow, the young physician of
Cavendish, with such success that he returned home to Lebanon, New Hampshire 10 weeks later.Some time later, Phineas felt strong enough to resume work. But because his personality had changed so much, the contractors who had employed him would not give him his place again. Before the accident he had been their most capable and efficient foreman, one with a well-balanced mind, and who was looked on as a shrewd smart business man. He was now fitful, irreverent, and grossly profane, showing little deference for his fellows. He was also impatient and obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, unable to settle on any of the plans he devised for future action. His friends said he was "No longer Gage."'

quote:

---

Would anyone care to show eveidence for the lack of
self-awareness in other animals or of their inability to reason
about the consequences of their actions ?

---

Uh, sure, I can show that. It's the "dot on the forehead" test.Take an animal, put a dot on their forehead, and have them look in a mirror. The ONLY animals that reach to their foreheads instead of the mirror are chimps and humans."Learning" about the consequences of actions (cause and effect) is a lot different from "reasoning" (using logic) about the consequences of actions.

quote:

---

How would you be able to hunt in organised groups without some
planning ability and communication system ? Have you ever
watched lionesses hunt (on TV anyhow) ... can you really believe
that such co-operation could be instinctive ?? A hunt
is an incredibly dynamic activity after all.

---

Yes, I really can accept that much of that cooperation could be instinctive, the same way that I accept that birds build nests without being taught, and a housecat who has never hunted a live animal in its life will still stalk and kill a toy mouse exactly like a feral cat does.Animals, such as lions, hunting in groups are using both instinct and learned behaviors, but not reason as I have defined it.[/QUOTE]