Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,136 Year: 5,393/9,624 Month: 418/323 Week: 58/204 Day: 34/24 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do animals have souls?
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5960 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 96 of 303 (307237)
04-28-2006 1:02 AM


Whatever happened to the original topic?

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by LudoRephaim, posted 04-29-2006 11:39 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5960 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 106 of 303 (317505)
06-04-2006 5:51 AM


I think a good way to aproach this question is by examining a little repetative human behaviour. Humans in general have a characteristic need to feel superior to things. We tend to place ourselves at the center and assume all else revolves around us. Time and again this view has proven false. Still we persist.
If we remove this silly self centered bias it makes good sense that all living things have a sense of "being"
Of course as I see it one does not have a soul. One is the soul which resides within the husk.

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by kalimero, posted 06-05-2006 7:30 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5960 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 108 of 303 (318612)
06-07-2006 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by kalimero
06-05-2006 7:30 AM


In "being", do you mean self conscience? If so, that has been disproven. (If you need evidence just say so)
Really?
What do you mean by "one"? (and dont say that "one" is the soul because that is curcular reasoning
{soul = one--->soul}
I meant exactly what I said.
Who are "you"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by kalimero, posted 06-05-2006 7:30 AM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by kalimero, posted 06-08-2006 10:34 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5960 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 110 of 303 (319503)
06-09-2006 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by kalimero
06-08-2006 10:34 AM


No person on earth has any idea of what conciousness is. Your definition of it is meaningless and quite limited being based only from the human perspective.
first of all, you didnt write "you" you wrote "one".
second, when you ask "who..." you are looking for identification, not definition. I think you mean "what are 'you'" - that makes the question easy:
1. I'm a man (male).
2. I'm a human.
3. I'm a collective of nuerons (causing conscience).
exc.
I have no indication of anything that is reffered to as "soul".
You are a litoralist then. One who sees no meaning, Only rules.
You will walk through life and forever miss the point.
Black people were niggers until people with this type of ignorance opened thier eyes. An intellectual indifference that has no spiritual ballance. A lot of that foolishness resides on here. The long "logical" webs people will weave to justify this basic point of view on things never ceases to amaze me. lol

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by kalimero, posted 06-08-2006 10:34 AM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by kalimero, posted 06-09-2006 2:45 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
 Message 118 by mick, posted 06-13-2006 3:29 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5960 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 112 of 303 (319869)
06-10-2006 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by kalimero
06-09-2006 2:45 PM


Do you know of other perspectives - that are not human?
How long did the sun revolve around the earth?
We are undoubtedly not the center of everything.
Your example in the link is one human view of a percieved way to test self awareness. It is simplistic at best and requires non humans to jump through human hoops. That entire approach is flawed. We still have only a rudimentary understanding of the true interactions other living things have with one another and what they mean to them.
Just because and animal is a "dork" and does not recognise itself in a mirror hardly means it is not self aware. Only a fool would come to such a conclusion from such a narrow perspective.
You mean that a critical investigation of the world around me that resides only on evidence will cause me to 'miss the point'? That's interesting. The word 'meanind' implies intent, an inteligence - therefore there doesnt have to be a meaning to anything if there is no perpose or inteligence.
Your view of the world around you reflects what is within. Is this what is within you?
really, because I've heard that the justifications were quite different ('black people are inferior' and all that nonsense) and were deeply rooted in religion.
Religions have nothing to do with prejudice. That is an aspect of our human character. One that is repeated in many circles and stems from the same core motivations. As I asked....How long did the sun revolve around the earth? Animals only act on insticnt right? lol
'spiritual ballance'? care to elaborate on that?
Surely.
A scientific/factual view of the world is no different than a litoral view of a religious text. The facts are meaningless. The percieved intent is all that matters. It is a reflection of what is in you. Perspectives shape things and the one you are representing is quite empty.
can you give an example?
You are one

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by kalimero, posted 06-09-2006 2:45 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by kalimero, posted 06-10-2006 3:16 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5960 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 114 of 303 (320689)
06-12-2006 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by kalimero
06-10-2006 3:16 PM


Thats not what the article says - maybe you should finish reading it.
I read the article. It is utter nonsense. The "results" are completely open to interpretation and indicate nothing except what one might read into them. There is no definitive test for self awareness nor is there a clear cut scientific definition of what it is. For someone to sight this as evidence of a clear lack of self awareness is very unscientific and absurd.
Obviously my perspective of the world reflects my perseption , but what does that have to do with what I said - and can you be a little less vague ('what is within').
When you come down to a definitive answer for what you are you will scientifically have to answer that you do not know. It will be no less vague
Religions are based on faith - 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof' Faith Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
therefore as long as our perseption of the world continues to change, religion must lead to prejudice.
Living life is based on faith. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Since there is no definitive scientific proof of what we are you must have faith in the existance of the undefinable to have this conversation. It is that simple.
Except that it provides evidence. (Its a small difference - I know)
lol. The mechanics of the world are meaningless. All scientific evidence lies in the mechanics. All things meaningful come from beyond what science can touch. It is the wrong tool for the job.
Now back to the animal thingy. It is simple. It comes down to what you believe as to whether animals have souls or not. I see nothing compelling from your posts so far to sway my view. We simply disagree on this philosophical point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by kalimero, posted 06-10-2006 3:16 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by kalimero, posted 06-12-2006 8:02 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5960 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 116 of 303 (320798)
06-12-2006 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by kalimero
06-12-2006 8:02 AM


This link is full of nothing but a point of view that I do not share.
Assertions.
Why of course. I am asserting my opinion as you are.
You simply do not share mine.
(1) Science does not 'come to a difinitive answer'; everything in science is tentative - from the very nature of our perspective being limited (physicaly).
It is you you has limited yor perspective to a belief in a doctrine that is tentative at best. That is your choice.
(2) You have to show why you think this is true - that is what scientists do - in order to have a logical conection between the hypothetical situation you proposed and your conclusion of what will have to happen.
Concerning the nature of what we are discussing science has no answers. Anything you have thus cited as evidence is based soley upon opinion.
You dont have to beleive in life in order to live it - therefore it requires nighther knowledge nor faith.
Firstly this completely depends upon your definition of living. Mechanically or spiritualy
Secondly we hear people from time to time state that life is just not worth living based upon a spiritual or completely non scientific point of view. This will often lead one to leave life prematurely by choice.
Religion is based on faith by definition
This is not entirely true. Many of the basic principals of religions are based upon good logical sense. Example: Do unto others....
You at this time are placing your faith in a doctrine which is tentative at best. I place mine in something beyond. It is simply a personal choice.
(2)I dont have to have faith, only tentative knowledge of things I can define -
But you do have faith. You are citing definitions faithfully. You are placing your belief in them or you would not choose to cite them.
and the perpose of a conversation is not to rehearse "difinitive truthes" (not that they exist) - that would be pointless - its purpose is to explore the things we dont know about.
The "purpose" of a conversation is not limited to your point of view.
Assertions - please explaine the sentences and the logic behind them.
It means exactly what I said. Science is tentative how. We ask the ultimate why. Science gives no answers as to why and by it's nature never will. Tell me scientifically the reason or reasons why life for you is worth living. Show me the meaning of your life. Reason it out.
Maybe the fact that you cant test or falsify the existance of a soul is enough to persuade you (seeing as how the soul is 'out of the realm of science') - or maybe you can try to prove it to me.
If you cant prove it or falsify it - the soul is not a default hypotheisis (it could be elves running your body) - then you must abandon the hypotheisis.
As I have stated several times this is simply a philosophical difference of opinion. The term soul describes that which science cannot define. Scientifically you must deny your existance. I not only accept my existance but embrace it with meaning. Your perspective does not allow for meaning. In my perspective it is good reason to assume I am not unique. It is that simple.
That has nothing to do with it. Occham's razor takes care of the soul hypotheisis, thats about it. I dont have to bring opposing evidence because nothing has been proven to the contrary.
Ocham's rasor is a philosophical piont of view. I do not need to rely upon citing other peoples thinking to argue my philosophical point of view and the original question is philosophical by nature. Science has nothing to add.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by kalimero, posted 06-12-2006 8:02 AM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by ReverendDG, posted 06-13-2006 2:52 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
 Message 119 by kalimero, posted 06-13-2006 5:52 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5960 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 120 of 303 (321208)
06-13-2006 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by ReverendDG
06-13-2006 2:52 AM


what kind of answer is that? so just because you disagree with it you have the right to handwave it? how disingenious of you. you said theres no way of testing self-awareness and he showed you a test!
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.
this is a science forum where you at least make the effort of backing up what you say, so what do you have to back up what you say?
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.
science can answer, since it is also a philosophy, hell all science is philosophy
but anyway, the problem i see is i have yet to see what is defined as a soul, much less how you know its there!, can you answer me that? how do you know if something has a soul if you can't observe it?
science answers that by saying something that can't be observed somehow most likely isn't there
You are a rather passionate individual. I cannot observe your mind.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by ReverendDG, posted 06-13-2006 2:52 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by kalimero, posted 06-14-2006 6:59 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
 Message 124 by ReverendDG, posted 06-14-2006 10:48 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5960 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

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5960 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

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5960 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

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5960 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 136 of 303 (322576)
06-17-2006 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by nwr
06-17-2006 9:54 AM


I addressed that by pointing out that you are using "observe" too narrowly.
I have simply applied your reasoning. It is you who is being selective.
Those are your words, not mine. We judge a force by its effects, not whether there are any tracks.
For you hair splitting benefit. Effects are the tracks we observe.
And this is just silly.
That is not a response I would expect from you.
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.
I did not say that anything having effects is a force.
It is you who is using words too narrowly by choice.
It is a very reasonable and accurate thing to say that every interaction between everything that exists is driven or caused by, and I use the term loosely "forces". No force...no interaction...stagnant universe.
It is also reasonable and accurate to say that the interaction we are having is a phenomenon that by continuity of my above statement must be driven by a force. It is a penomenon that science cannot account for. I am simply being a good scientific observer.I observe that there is a force at work that current scientific understanding does not address. I am simply labeling this "force" as "soul" if you will.
If you insist on inventing your own meanings for words, then you limit your ability to communicate.
If you insist on selectively using narrow definitions of meaning you will limit your ability to understand.
You can remedy that problem by studying some physics.
I have a very good understanding of the perspective of physics.
I actually have a fairly elaborate theory of human cognition. However, nobody much seems interested.
Have you shared it with evc?
I am curious. You use the word "I" in the above sentence. How do you mean this? Do you account for "I" as congnition. Maybe the reason people are ignoring your theory is that they choose not to be defined in that way. You have views and ideas you have not shared in this general avenue we have discussed across similar topics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by nwr, posted 06-17-2006 9:54 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by nwr, posted 06-17-2006 2:16 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5960 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 138 of 303 (322636)
06-17-2006 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by nwr
06-17-2006 2:16 PM


I won't further comment on your "force of you" thesis, since that discussion is going nowhere.
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion.
I am of the opinion that it is directly shaped by that which you describe in this statement:
It is difficult for people to challenge their long established assumptions, particularly when they are not consciously aware that they are making such assumptions.
Perhaps it's time you share what is truly on your mind.
People have quite strong ideas on what they expect of a theory of cognition. There are, roughly, three main groups of such expectations.
1. A spiritual explanation (a supernatural dualistic soul);
2. A computational explanation (as in Artificial Intelligence);
3. Some sort of mysticism, suggesting that the problem is unsolvable.
These are all just different views of the same thing. It is that simple.
I guess you might be thinking of the "I" as the atoms that make up my body. I don't agree with that. I don't see the "I" as made of atoms. I see it as a system of processes, which temporarily make use of those atoms to do the processing. But most of the atoms that today constitute my body, will be gone and replaced by this time next year. However, the processes go on.
This quote of yours from the "You are" topic, to me, shows you believe in exactly what I am puting forth in my "force of me" topic. There is something that occurs independant of the known "forces" of physics. To say " a system of processes makes use" What do you mean by that? There are many systems of process in nature. Then they all "make use" of atoms? How do you believe we are different or are we?
My over all view is that we exist independant of and within the body at the same time.This is what I identify as soul or I. We define our own reality by how we choose to percieve what we encounter. I do not share your or others finite perception of "I". In turn my reasoning suggests that the world is not flat. I would be a fool to assume that humans are unique in nature. I also feel that far to many people place limits on what the natural world is. "Supernatural" is just another way of seeing the same thing.
In my opinion, the person arises from the biological processes, particularly those involved in behavior and perception.
This was another quote from the "you are" topic.
Do you mean the conciousness arises from biological processes?
Perception is indeed everything. Different perceptions or perspctives will yield different understandings. Reluctance to see things from different perpectives reveals factual traits of the force of you the soul. It is all perspective. The facts are meaningless until meaning is brought to them and that meaning will forever be open to interpretaion. I am not a process. I can be viewed by you as a process for your purposes but that has nothing to do with my interests. I will define myself if you don't mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by nwr, posted 06-17-2006 2:16 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by nwr, posted 06-17-2006 7:52 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5960 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 140 of 303 (322785)
06-18-2006 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by nwr
06-17-2006 7:52 PM


No, this is not the same view you are putting forth. For one thing, I am not suggesting there is anything mystical about it. For another, I am not suggesting that anything is happening that is independent of the known forces of physics.
I would like you to share with me where you believe the mysticism is in anything I have said. I certainly do not see my view as mystical.
That would make you a substance dualist. Essentially, you take the first of those three options that I suggested.
That would make me a dualist to you. I do not see it that way. I am. there is nothing dual about it.
I'll give an example. Think of the Mississippi river. After a while, the water currently there will have flowed out to sea. We could dig up all of the soil on the river banks, and replace it with different soil. We would still have the Mississippi river. Thus neither the atoms of soil, nor the atoms of water constitute the river. Rather, what constitutes the river is the flow of water, as constrained by the river banks. The river make temporary use of the atoms of flowing water, and the atoms in the constraining banks. However, it is the process, not the atoms, that constitute the river. And the river is not independent of the water and the banks. Without water to flow and the banks to constrain the flow, there would be no river.
Please explain to me how a phenomenon "makes use" of anything.
Your idea is just another view of a meaningless causal effect scenario. Any view of this nature will always fall short of the meaning of "I" At least typical religions have meaning. Science's aproach in this area has thus far remained meaningless and will remain so until the current dogma is abandoned.
Yes, certainly. However, I don't claim that it necessarily arises from biological processes.
Really. Then how do you explain the basis of your theory?
For example, I don't claim that an amoeba is conscious.
Why not? Perhaps you can tell me exactly why you decided to imply that an ameoba is somehow exempt from this theory? Conciousness may come in more forms than we can comprehend or understand.
Black people used to be seen as inferior by "enlightened" people.
I would say that you are simply biologically prejudice. We have seen this pattern of human self importance repeated ad'infinitum. I would suggest that to take a truly scientific view of your idea you must consider all living biological processes may be concious in some manner.
I would disagree with that. Facts are inherently meaningful.
This is not the case. Facts mean different things to different people.
In many cases facts that are central to some people may be absolutely meaningless to others. It is the elusive "I" that brings meaning to facts. Without the "I" there can be no meaning.
Statements (as strings of letters) are meaningless, until meaning is brought to them. And the meaning of statements is open to interpretation. But when we use the word "fact", we are applying that term to what we take the statement to mean, and not to the raw syntax.
I am not sure why you bothered with the syntax comment. It is irrelevant.
"I" am a fact.....proceed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by nwr, posted 06-17-2006 7:52 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by RickJB, posted 06-18-2006 4:43 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
 Message 145 by nwr, posted 06-19-2006 11:55 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5960 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 142 of 303 (323113)
06-19-2006 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by RickJB
06-18-2006 4:43 AM


You might want to brush up on your philosophical definitions. Dualists believe in a universe consisting to two components: physical matter and souls.
Right. How about instead of relying on others ideas you think on your own. I have never bothered reading philosophy. I simply make my own.I am not a dualist. As I said, I do not believe in physical matter and souls as something inherantly separate. Exactly what physical matter is has not been determined yet. The idea of physical is our concept.
The entire idea may limit our undertanding of the true nature of the universe. The universe is likely made up of far more than anyone has the capacity to imagine let alone hope to prove or discover. The scope of what we can currently detect or understand is limited to dogma.
To again address the philosophial question of the topic. Based on my philosophy and reason, all living things must have something of this nature. As I have said many times...we are very self involved as a species and prone to think the universe evolves around us. This is not likely so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by RickJB, posted 06-18-2006 4:43 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by RickJB, posted 06-19-2006 5:33 AM 2ice_baked_taters 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