Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do animals have souls?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 303 (303169)
04-11-2006 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by pesto
04-10-2006 7:26 PM


Now where it gets interesting is in theological evolution. Assuming this starting point, humans evolved from our ape ancestors. If humans have souls and other animals don't, at what point did human ancestors start having souls?
Check out this thread: God as the source for man's creative explosion.
Thats where I think it happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by pesto, posted 04-10-2006 7:26 PM pesto has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by smak_84, posted 04-21-2006 5:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 303 (305785)
04-21-2006 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by smak_84
04-21-2006 5:55 PM


Re: How about this?
Yes, most definitely, animals have souls, as do plants.
My beliefs differ. I think that only humans have souls.
There is a difference between souls, however. The human soul is unique in the sense that it is persistant after death
Well, if the human soul is unique and different than the other souls, I would refer to the human soul as just 'soul' and all the others as non-souls (or some new word to discribe them).
Animal and plant souls, however, do not persist in existence, but undergo something like what decaying matter undergoes. They, as it is described, return to the "potency of matter (that is, the philisophical matter - which is close, but not quite what scientists mean by matter).
Further, the soul is the philosophical "form" of the human being (id est (i.e.) the determing element that enters into the basic physical makeup of all finite beings). This might help explain what the soul is.
Adding in all this extra stuff is unneccessary, to me, and makes the situation more confusing. I have no reason to believe that other animals have souls, so I don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by smak_84, posted 04-21-2006 5:55 PM smak_84 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by smak_84, posted 04-21-2006 8:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 303 (305803)
04-21-2006 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by smak_84
04-21-2006 8:29 PM


Re: How about this?
I'm using philosophical language here.
Well, I guess I don't speak it.
The more detailed you get, the more confusing it might be. I'm just trying to be precise.
You were. It was just more detail than I've ever put into it. I haven't really thought about it that much. Maybe later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by smak_84, posted 04-21-2006 8:29 PM smak_84 has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 303 (330866)
07-11-2006 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by kalimero
07-11-2006 3:18 PM


there is no evidence to support a soul and therefore it does not accuratly decribe the world.
That statement has at least two errors.
One is the claim that there is no evidence to support a soul. Slap an 'objective' on there and I'll give it to ya but your inability to observe the evidence does not negate its existance. There are plenty of us out here with subjective evidence for our souls.
The second is the claim that the soul does not accuratly decribe the world. You cannot know this and shouldn't make this claim. I'm sure you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by kalimero, posted 07-11-2006 3:18 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by kalimero, posted 07-11-2006 4:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 303 (330922)
07-11-2006 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by kalimero
07-11-2006 4:26 PM


One is the claim that there is no evidence to support a soul.
Nobody has presented any evidence.
Nobody has presented objective evidence. Plenty of us claim to have subjective evidence of our own souls. The claim that evidence does not exist should not be made unless you throw the objective in there. The claim that no evidence has been presented stands but that was not your original claim.
If your hypotheisis about a soul is correct you should be able to demonsrate/give evidence of it
False. There could be stuff/things that exist that are not scientifically detectable. For all practical purposes, the assumption that they do not exist works great, but it remains an assumption. My subjective experience suggests that my soul does exist and the lack of scientific detection doesn't convince me otherwise.
if you cant do that or if I am "unable to observe the evidence" then you have to rethink your hypotheisis because if you can sense/observe it then it has an impact on the world and can be demonsrated.
I disagree. I think the impact on the world occurs in the mind, which lies somewhere between the physical and spiritual realms.
The second is the claim that the soul does not accuratly decribe the world.
I didnt claim that. I said that the hypotheisis of the soul doesnt explain the world; the soul allegedly being part of the world.
Thats what I meant. I meant what you meant. It was a bad cut n paste job. But it still remains that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science (and you) assume it does not exist and, with the principle of parsimony, it it the proper thing for science to do, but with my subjective evidence I conclude that the soul does in fact exists (with no objective demonstration required).

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by kalimero, posted 07-11-2006 4:26 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by ramoss, posted 07-11-2006 7:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 226 by kalimero, posted 07-12-2006 2:28 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 303 (331094)
07-12-2006 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by kalimero
07-12-2006 2:28 AM


2ice_baked_taters has already said that there is no such thing as completely objective evidence and I agree.
Completely? I agree too but I'd say that there is completely objective evidence for all practical purposes. An apple falls out of a tree and hits me on the head, that's completely objective evidence in my book even if one could argue that you can't even really know that the apple exists in the first place.
If the soul is not scientificly detectable then you wouldnt be able to experience it
False. You have too much faith in science. Its power is not limitless.
because science comes down to what we experience, subjective as it may be it has to be tested.
That line doesn't make sense to me. I think we are using the term subjective differently.
I think you just slipped out of the science forum right there; you assume the there is a spiritual world?
I don't assume there is a spiritual world, I conclude it
I never said that the soul doesnt exist
Oh but it seemed like you did. That's the whole reason I jumped in this thread. See my Message 221. It was a reply to what you typed in Message 218.
kalimero in Message 218 writes:
there is no evidence to support a soul and therefore it does not accuratly decribe the world.
You later clarified that the "it" was refering to 2ice's hypotheisis and not the existance of a soul. I was confused by the ambiguity.
I have no contradictory evidence, all I'm saying is that there is no evidence that it does exist.
That's fine. I'm saying that I have personal un-scientific subjective "evidence" for the existance of my own soul. So, does this evidence exist? I say yes, you say no. Sounds like a segway to a new thread to me...(dibs on not starting it)
but with my subjective evidence I conclude that the soul does in fact exists (with no objective demonstration required).
Required by whom? you
Yes, me. I don't require objectivity nor scientific discovery to believe that something exists.
science requires demonsrations of the propeties of a soul, and I demand those things for my subjective experinces to, or else how would I knnow that I'm not just fooling myself
You could know you aren't fooling yourself by trusting your own judgment. If you don't think you have a soul then fine that's cool, but I wouldn't hold that belief because science has failed to discover it. How do you know your not being fooled?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by kalimero, posted 07-12-2006 2:28 AM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by ramoss, posted 07-12-2006 11:49 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 236 by kalimero, posted 07-13-2006 10:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 240 by Wounded King, posted 07-13-2006 12:37 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 303 (331124)
07-12-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by ramoss
07-12-2006 11:49 AM


The way he knows he is not being fooled is that he is not relying strictly on his 'subjective senses', but rather on evidence that can be presented and examined by other people.
Conversely, if you rely strictly on evidence that can be presented and examined by other people, how do you know that you're not being fooled?
How do you know you're not being fooled?
I don't, really, but I don't believe that I am (realizing that being fooled well enough means you don't think your being fooled). Its a judgement call, just whip out your bullshit detector. My says that the soul does, in fact, exist.
Also, other people I've talked/typed to have similiar feelings on the subject so I don't think it is strictly subjective, it just isn't scientifically observable*. Limiting yourself to that which is scientifically observable could limit the truths you discover, IMHO.
*My opinion on that is that the soul shouldn't be objectively verifiable because then there would be no reason for faith, which I believe is something that god wants to exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by ramoss, posted 07-12-2006 11:49 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by ramoss, posted 07-12-2006 12:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 303 (331128)
07-12-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by ramoss
07-12-2006 12:28 PM


The chances are much less.. because there is this thing known as verification from other sources. There is much less chance of fooling
oneself if the evidecne can be examined and analyised by multiple people.
I think you misunderstood my point, probably because I expressed it poorly.
I was saying that if you rely strictly(exclusively) on objective evidence, and assume that if science can't measure it then it doesn't exist, then how do you know you are not being fooled into failing to realize that things do exist that are not scientifically observable.
All you are going on is a feeling , and wishful thinking.
But the feelings are "verified" but other people's feelings, albeit a very unscientific method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by ramoss, posted 07-12-2006 12:28 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by ramoss, posted 07-12-2006 1:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 303 (331170)
07-12-2006 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by ramoss
07-12-2006 1:03 PM


You interpret these feeligns as 'jesus'. People in a hindu culture do not. People in an islamic culture interpret it as 'allah'.
But we are all interpreting something. This seems to suggest that something is there.
Examination of the phenemonia does not show any evidence that there is a trigger to these experainces that is not outside the brain, brought on by purely physical triggers.
They have not been shown to be purely physical. There is a lack of evidence of a trigger outside the brain, but it takes the principle to assume that without evidence, it does not exist and is only physical. To me, it seems to be different. I don't limit my feelings because of science.
Since it is shown that these experiances are intepreted depending on culture, it can be shown that the experiances are molded by expectations... and therefore not evidence of what you claim it is evidence for.
Well I don't think it has been shown that they are molded by expectations.
You could say the culture causes the feeling, I think the feelings caused the culture.
And it definately hasn't been shown to be physical without the need for that assumption(which probably isn't possible).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by ramoss, posted 07-12-2006 1:03 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by ramoss, posted 07-13-2006 8:39 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 303 (331475)
07-13-2006 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by kalimero
07-13-2006 10:36 AM


2ice_baked_taters has already said that there is no such thing as completely objective evidence and I agree.
Completely? I agree too but I'd say that there is completely objective evidence for all practical purposes. An apple falls out of a tree and hits me on the head, that's completely objective evidence in my book even if one could argue that you can't even really know that the apple exists in the first place.
Ok, so how do we determain whats more objective (more likly to be true) and what is less - I say testing the evidence and peer review.
Yeah, that works but remember that it must be objective evidence.
If the soul is not scientificly detectable then you wouldnt be able to experience it
False. You have too much faith in science. Its power is not limitless.
Science deals with the ability to measure the physical world - its actualy just looking around (thats how it was done a long time ago and it has not changed much).
Right, so if the soul existed and it was something that you had to look into yourself to find (obtaining subjective evidence), it would not be something that we could not investigate scientifically. This failure of science should not be a reason to conclude (or assume) that the soul does not exist. Occam’s Razor works great in the lab, but not when talking about spirituality.
because science comes down to what we experience, subjective as it may be it has to be tested.
That line doesn't make sense to me. I think we are using the term subjective differently.
Maybe your right - how about a definition?
Subjective Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
I think #4 or #5, how about you?
#4 is fine and the one I have been using.
quote:
peculiar to a particular individual
That’s why your line above makes no sense. If we are experiencing it and testing it then it is no longer subjective.
I think you just slipped out of the science forum right there; you assume the there is a spiritual world?
I don't assume there is a spiritual world, I conclude it
conclude it from what? how about testing it?
I conclude it from my subjective experience. When I look into myself I see a soul in there (figuratively speaking typing). I test it when I ask friends and they say that they’ve found their soul too. Not being able to scientifically/objectively verify the existence of my soul does not take away from the experiences I have already had. It isn’t a reason, for me, to stop believing in the soul.
I have no contradictory evidence, all I'm saying is that there is no evidence that it does exist.
That's fine. I'm saying that I have personal un-scientific subjective "evidence" for the existance of my own soul. So, does this evidence exist?
You can believe whatever you want - I am a scientist and I think that it doesnt matter what your "subjective evidence" tells you - for the sake of honesty you have to verify it - thats what double blind tests are for - removing the subjecivity.
For the sake of honesty I have to agree with what I think is true. I also believe that the subjectivity is important because if we had objective evidence for the soul (and God) then belief in it/him would be the default and there would be no need for faith (which is something that god must want us to have).
I say yes, you say no. Sounds like a segway to a new thread to me...(dibs on not starting it)
On the 16th I have my last final test (physics 1) then I'll be happy to.
Damn, good luck. Its reasons like those that I’m glad I’m done with school.
but with my subjective evidence I conclude that the soul does in fact exists (with no objective demonstration required).
Required by whom? you
Yes, me. I don't require objectivity nor scientific discovery to believe that something exists.
And have you even been wrong?
Yes. How about optical illusions.
You can have a subjective experience that something is moving when it is not. Other people can see it too and you’re all wrong. I am very well aware that this is possible with my experiences with my soul. This possibility doesn’t outweigh my belief.
science requires demonsrations of the propeties of a soul, and I demand those things for my subjective experinces to, or else how would I knnow that I'm not just fooling myself
You could know you aren't fooling yourself by trusting your own judgment. If you don't think you have a soul then fine that's cool, but I wouldn't hold that belief because science has failed to discover it. How do you know your not being fooled?
I dont. But I constantly check myself, so the probability of me being wrong at any time is lower then if I didnt check myself. This is because there are an infinant number of beliefes I can believe, but only one (or so it may seem) is right, therefore the probability of me getting it right the first time is 1 over infinaty - or IOW zero. The more I check myself the better.
The probability of getting it right is worthless to whether or not it is right. I check myself too and I still feel like I have a soul so I continue to accept its existence. If your using something that has a limit to what it can detect to determine what is real then you could very well be missing out (being fooled). If you have had no experience with your soul and really don't think you have one, then that's fine. I just don't think you should use the lack of scientific discovery to be the reason that you don't think it exists. Becuase if it is real and does exist, science is not gonna find it and neither are you.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : struck out the extra 'not' in my sentence with the unintentional double negetive

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by kalimero, posted 07-13-2006 10:36 AM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by kalimero, posted 07-13-2006 3:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 303 (331479)
07-13-2006 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by ramoss
07-13-2006 8:39 AM


Well, the 'something' that can be demonstrated is the specific brain activity. There is no evidence that these 'feelings' are anything but one sectoin of the brain being active, while the other section of the brain (that deals with awareness of self) is more quiessed than usual.
This can be brought about through artificial stimulation of the brain.
If the soul exists and interacts with the physical world through the mind via some section of the brain then your senario would be expected. The demonstation that there is some brain activity involved is not evidence that the mind and the soul are NOT involved. Certainly there is no evidence that they ARE involved and the principle of parsimony removes them, but I believe in the soul already and this is not evidence against it, IMO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by ramoss, posted 07-13-2006 8:39 AM ramoss has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 303 (331562)
07-13-2006 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by kalimero
07-13-2006 3:58 PM


This is not going to go anywhere if you keep sliping in and out of the science forum. ("spirituality")
...and it will quickly end if I remain strictly scientific.
There is no objective evidence for the soul so it should be assumed to not exist to maintain parsimony.
Damn, good luck. Its reasons like those that I’m glad I’m done with school.
University actually.
’’‘ -‘’ ‘ - ’ ’ !
Yeah, same difference to me, I got the impression you meant unversity and I just use the word school for any intructional institution.
But Wow! that looks like a really nice place! Is it expensive?
Here's where I went: Home | University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
What methods do you use to check yourself? (if not scientific)
Nothing really that specific and definately not scientific. More of a musing or searching within myself to see if I still 'feel' my soul, kinda just questioning my own beliefs and talking to others. Plus I've looked in to scientific studies on consciousness and the mind etc. but nothing to exhaustive.
Maybe you can start by stating the propeties of the soul that you look for and compare that to the scientific expanation of the same property.
The only property that it really has is the seemingness of its existance. I've alreaded stated that I don't think it is scientifically detectable, and purposely not so. The closest thing to it is the physical causes of consciousness and the mind and the science in those areas is underdeveloped and not really finding too much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by kalimero, posted 07-13-2006 3:58 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by kalimero, posted 07-13-2006 4:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 249 of 303 (333267)
07-19-2006 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by kalimero
07-13-2006 4:51 PM


How does this "seemingness of its existance" manifest?
I can't describe it scientifically and I'll pribably do a poor job describing it in any way. Its kindof a hard question to answer, like, 'What does 'red' look like?'
But anyways, my soul seems to exist and I have a feeling that it is a part of me and affects/is-affected-by me. It manifests constantly and subtly, it you could hear it, it would be like a low hum. If you could see it, it would be like a faint glow. Like I said, its hard to describe. I think my soul and my body interact, through my mind, and with others' souls, through their bodies/brains--->minds--->souls.
I'll leave it at that for now, maybe you can prod me with further questions and I can describe it better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by kalimero, posted 07-13-2006 4:51 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by kalimero, posted 07-19-2006 4:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 303 (333450)
07-19-2006 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by kalimero
07-19-2006 4:39 PM


Thats understandable, maybe you can give some kind of analogy that would give me some kind of notion of what it is your talking about.
Thats what I was trying to do with:
quote:
It manifests constantly and subtly, it you could hear it, it would be like a low hum. If you could see it, it would be like a faint glow.
Is that too poetic and vague? Tell me what red looks like so I can get an idea of what you want.
Can you propose a way to test these properties?
No. Can you?
I think they did this thing where they poked at peoples brains and induced religious experiences and claimed that the brain was the source of them. I don't think this eliminates the possiblility of the soul being responsible for them as well, especially if the soul is tied to the brain via the mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by kalimero, posted 07-19-2006 4:39 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by kalimero, posted 07-20-2006 3:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 303 (333777)
07-20-2006 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by kalimero
07-20-2006 3:47 PM


It doesnt have to eliminate the possibility of a soul, it just has to offer a better hypotheisis to explain it (parsimony, remember?).
It just has to offer to who? Me? Certainly not. You? Whatever floats your boat.
Let me repost some of the things I've typed in the previous messages in this thread.
quote:
Occam’s Razor works great in the lab, but not when talking about spirituality.
but it takes the principle to assume that without evidence, it does not exist and is only physical. To me, it seems to be different. I don't limit my feelings because of science.
I was saying that if you rely strictly(exclusively) on objective evidence, and assume that if science can't measure it then it doesn't exist, then how do you know you are not being fooled into failing to realize that things do exist that are not scientifically observable.
Limiting yourself to that which is scientifically observable could limit the truths you discover, IMHO.
You get where I'm comming from?
I cant actually tell for sure, I just wanted some sort of property to base a experiment on.
I think that the soul lacks properties that are able to be experimented on, scientifically. Perhaps we could have a philosophical experiment, if thats possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by kalimero, posted 07-20-2006 3:47 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-21-2006 10:12 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 258 by kalimero, posted 07-22-2006 12:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 271 by ramoss, posted 08-01-2006 7:45 AM New Cat's Eye 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