Do animals have souls?

This is an interesting question as it separates pan-spiritualists from anthropocentrists.Though I have a materialist outlook, I have more sympathy with the pan-spiritualist who sees a "spirit" in all life, than the anthropocentrist. I dislike the idea that humanity has some kind of existential ascendancy of over every other form of life, even though it's an assumption we all make (myself included) at one point or another.In my humble opinion we ALL return to the earth!This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-26-2006 03:13 AM

You might want to brush up on your philosophical definitions. Dualists believe in a universe consisting to two components: physical matter and souls.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Am I supposed to find that somehow admirable? Given that you are currently attempting a philosophical discussion, this assertion makes you look very silly indeed. Well if that's your stance I suggest you read "A Treatise concerning the Principles of Knowledge" by George Berkley (1710). He was mulling the same ideas three hundred years ago....But wait, you dont read Philosophy, right?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Quite. Are there? What am I like, then? Oh do please flick that chip of your shoulder! Your ideas are about as original as a Hollywood sequel! If you took the trouble to read the work of others you'd be better informed and far less cocky to boot.No-one operates in a conceptual vacuum. Einstein, Newton, Leonardo, Aristotle, Plato - all openly built on the ideas of others.You are no exception.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : Tags.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Whoa! ...and there was me just pointing out that you had failed to understand why NWR called you a dualist. This from a philosopher who can't be bothered to study philosophy! Quite the opposite, in fact. I'm very aware about what I don't know, and would struggle to define any kind of universal philosophy even with the benefit of a lifetime's learning and experience!------------------------------------Now with regard to the topic I would propose animals having degrees of consciousness that are dependent on their particular brain function. On this scale humans would qualify as being particularly self-aware. I see no need for a "soul". One could place me in the "materialist" camp.Since you have corrected me with regard to NWR's labelling of you as a "dualist" you sound as if you are arguing from a "monist" perspective (a metaphysical and theological view that all is of one essential essence, principle, substance or energy). Is that right?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Okay, enough sniping..Now, with regard to the topic I would propose animals having degrees of consciousness that are dependent on their particular brain function. On this scale humans would qualify as being particularly self-aware. I see no need for a "soul". One could place me in the "materialist" camp, I suppose.Since you have corrected me with regard to NWR's labelling of you as a "dualist" you sound as if you are arguing from a "monist" perspective (a metaphysical/theological view that all is of one essential essence, substance or energy). Is that right?

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).

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.

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...

You cut to the chase! I like that! 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.. 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...! 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.

Well certainly life does not depend on conciousness! I would argue that consciousness serves as a beneficial adaptation. 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...

Hey 2ice,My reply to your last comment is at post 165.