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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do animals have souls?
smak_84
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 303 (305754)
04-21-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2006 10:36 AM


How about this?
Yes, most definitely, animals have souls, as do plants. "WHAAAT!" you say. This is because no one here has yet identified what a soul is. The Bible will give you an idea, but you have to explore what the Bible is talking about.
The soul (an immaterial substance - why ought matter to be the only substance existing?) is the first and most basic organizing principle of living beings. There is a difference between souls, however. The human soul is unique in the sense that it is persistant after death (the separation of the soul from the human body -- an unnatural state for it). 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.
This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-21-2006 05:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2006 10:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2006 8:14 PM smak_84 has replied

smak_84
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 303 (305794)
04-21-2006 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by New Cat's Eye
04-21-2006 8:14 PM


Re: How about this?
I'm using philosophical language here. It can be a little dense, but so can Chemical Analysis papers. The more detailed you get, the more confusing it might be. I'm just trying to be precise.
This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-21-2006 08:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2006 8:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2006 9:05 PM smak_84 has not replied

smak_84
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 303 (305912)
04-22-2006 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by kalimero
04-22-2006 9:30 AM


About hydrozoa and scyphozoa...
It doesn't necessarily matter if they're plants or animals (as far as souls are concerned) as both have souls - that most basic organizing principle that makes all living things to be that which it is - a plant, animal, or human being (humans just have a special kind of soul). I would say, if they exhibit animal-like behavior, they're probably animals with a dormant stage (like hibernation observed in mammals).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by kalimero, posted 04-22-2006 9:30 AM kalimero has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2006 12:26 PM smak_84 has replied

smak_84
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 303 (305923)
04-22-2006 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
04-22-2006 12:26 PM


Re: About hydrozoa and scyphozoa...
There are bacteria that contain chloroplasts as well, just so you know (and they're not plants - so that doesn't make a plant a plant).
Further, only some branches of science have been closed to dualism. Gross materialism is a branch of Philosophical Monism which states that there is only material substance and denies the existence of immaterial substances. This position is absured and quite prideful as it asserts that science has conclusively determined that only physical substances exist.
Further, do you have any evidence to disprove the existence of immaterial forms? Again, by what properties do we determine what a dog is? Are four legs essential (what about a dog with an amputated leg? Is that animal no longer a dog)? We all seem to recognize dogs nonetheless.
This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-22-2006 11:42 AM
This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-22-2006 11:43 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2006 12:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2006 1:20 PM smak_84 has replied

smak_84
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 303 (305945)
04-22-2006 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
04-22-2006 1:20 PM


Re: About hydrozoa and scyphozoa...
Most certainly that animal pictured is a kind of dog. Why wouldn't it be?
My mistake, about the assertion of bacteria with chloroplasts, I wasn't aware of the depth of you knowledge of biology. I was using bacteria as a general term. Protists, then, have chloroplasts, and cyanobacteria in a sense (but not exactly) act as large chloroplasts (however the molecular pathways are different in cyanobacteria).
As far as essential characteristics to a species: what makes us human, and not an ape? I need a complete and comprehensive list that the taxonmists use to define human as opposed to ape. Why are they hotly disputed? Because no one can describe an immaterial form using material attributes. It's like trying to describe cement by using only things we observe about sound. The comparison is absurd.
How does that fact that new species devlop from old ones necessarily disprove the existence of forms? Why wouldn't it just necessarily be a different form that is created?
Further the fact that we can all recognize this diversity must mean that there is something that is signaling diversity, but what?
Do you, then assert that the existence of the soul is an absurd notion then?
Since what you label as "species essentialism" it is discredited by a philosophical monist (id est, only material substances exist) view that the physical sciences are restricted to, does this necessarily make the situation objectivly so? Or is it possible that forms exist? Is it possible that we can only observe their effects but we cannot directly detect them?
It's like gravity, you see, we can observe its effects and we can measure and predict how it will effect things. However, scientists have little idea about what it is (they have theories, but nothing definite).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2006 1:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2006 6:55 PM smak_84 has replied

smak_84
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 303 (306040)
04-22-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by crashfrog
04-22-2006 6:55 PM


Re: About hydrozoa and scyphozoa...
If you're going to use insulting remarks like:
"Nice, though. What is that, forum debating tactic #26? Turning your exposed ignorance into an attempt to portray yourself as the condescending expert?
I could go on all afternoon correcting your mistakes, but that's not much fun and I told my buddies I'd play World of Warcraft with them, so I must be brief."
I don't think I shall continue this discussion. Ad Hominem attacks on parties of a debate are completely unnecessary and do no work in advancing the discussion.
However to answer some of your questions:
Bacteria being the term how commercials on TV use it id est another term for microorganisms.
Is not a wolf a type of dog?
There's obviously a huge difference between us and apes. We have the ability for advanced intellectual capacities. Apes haven't demonstrated that ability yet.
Why wouldn't a physical happening create an immaterial thing? Read some philosophy to understand immaterial things.
There's something your mind picks up on that tells it that one thing is different from another, when it compiles the sense images. What is is picking up on? How does the mind know that the sense images for a tree make those sense images mean a tree and not a chair? This would be the recognition of the form.
Lastly, it seems we don't have some basic definitions down about philosophical concepts (I apologize for doing an inadequite job defining them) Read some philosophy -- some Plato, some Aristotle, some Aquinas, some Maimonidies, some Immanuel Kant and then we'll resume this discussion.
This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-23-2006 01:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2006 6:55 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Belfry, posted 04-23-2006 8:40 AM smak_84 has not replied
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2006 10:51 AM smak_84 has replied
 Message 75 by Quetzal, posted 04-23-2006 12:33 PM smak_84 has replied

smak_84
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 303 (306131)
04-23-2006 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by crashfrog
04-23-2006 10:51 AM


Re: About hydrozoa and scyphozoa...
First:
f you don't like the way your behavior is described, change your behavior. We were on perfectly civil terms until you chose to respond to the correction of your mistake by becoming condecending.
My intent was not to be condecending. How was I? I was clarifying my response. If my language sounded offensive for some reason I apologize, I didn't mean anything malicious.
I've never seen a TV commercial that used the word "bacteria" in such an imprecise manner. I believe the word you're looking for is "germ."
Perhaps I remembered the commercials I've seen incorrectly, again I apologize.
No, it's not. Canis lupis is a different species than Canis familiaris.
Same genus perhaps both are dogs in that sense?
How would it?
If the existence of immaterial and material things were tied together, creation of material things (not the ex nihilo creation - creation as in the creation of an artwork) would necessarily effect immaterial realities whose existence is tied to them.
uperfamily Hominoidea does indeed encompass a considerable range of species diversity. So what? From the genetic information we know that humans belong to superfamily Hominoidea. Look, you can look it up if you don't believe me.
What, you didn't think humans appeared in the taxonomy? Maybe you don't think we're mammals, either? Or vertebrates?
Again, quit using ad hominem attacks during debate, just present your point as it says in the rules for these discussions:
10. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
The fact that the human intellective process has created things animals haven't even come close to (but only resemble in simpler occurances - like language) shows we are vastly different from apes.
Let me also clarify my position: I'm not doubting the possibility of the process proposed in the evolution theory (the only stipulation is that I think it's impossible for it to be a random occurance...it seems to have been guided).
Which philosophy do you recommend? Be specific. I need authors and titles, please.
Philosophy to read for starters would be Aristotle's Physics, Metaphysics, and Nicomachean Ethics. Just for a beginning of the concepts behind these terms (not that Aristotle is not the final word on these things...but it gives an idea of these philosophical concepts).
Sometimes you can construct a chair, though, that people don't immediately recognize as a chair. Sometimes you can see a tree that you don't immediately recognize as a tree.
Provide evidence for these observations please.
not enlist a cadre of musty old codgers to do it for you.
The philosophy peresented by these guys is the basis for the scientific method. The concept of the scientific method was an ancient Greek invention that came out of this philosophical work. Since physical science depends on this concept devloped by these guys, it is possible that they might have more to teach that is useful and important to this discussion.
pretend that I've actually read the major works of those philosophers and rejected their arguments as unsound and contradicted by the facts.
You cannot reject their arguements if you have not read them. Further you cannot say they're contrary to fact if you have not read them.
This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-23-2006 12:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2006 10:51 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2006 11:09 PM smak_84 has replied

smak_84
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 303 (306134)
04-23-2006 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Quetzal
04-23-2006 12:33 PM


Re: Wolves and Trees
As far as essence is concerned: what makes us human? What are the necessary things to be present for a human being to be a human being? This is what essence is.
In defense of form:
What causes something to be that species?
The Genetic Code (this is one cause).
What Causes the Genetic Code to have that Code?
The Adenosine, Thyamine, Guanine, Cytosine sequences (and the rare modifications of these) held to the phosphodiester backbone.
What causes these molecules to exist?
The the intermolecular forces between compatable elements.
What causes these intermolecular forces?
Opposite charges and a little bit of gravity.
Why do opposite charges or gravity cause attraction between two physical bodies?
....
There are theories, but no real proven explaination. Might I propose an immaterial form that holds the bits of subatomic particles together?
Thank you Quetzal for your comments. They have been most helpful. Some background reading will be quite helpful to deepen my understanding of the topic.
This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-23-2006 02:27 PM
This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-23-2006 02:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Quetzal, posted 04-23-2006 12:33 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Quetzal, posted 04-23-2006 4:50 PM smak_84 has replied
 Message 79 by kalimero, posted 04-23-2006 5:25 PM smak_84 has not replied

smak_84
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 303 (306169)
04-23-2006 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Quetzal
04-23-2006 4:50 PM


Re: Wolves and Trees
The point of my last post is to open the possibility for an immaterial substance that organizes matter (the same thing that causes the attraction between subatomic particles). This immaterial substance could network the particles correctly resulting in whatever - giving a possibility for the form.
Then a soul is a form particular to living things. Thus, since an animal is a living thing - it has a soul (back to the OP).
In your response to my comment about essence: HUMANS ARE NOT MONKEYS (even if you are playing a trick dresing a monkey up like one). You cannot possibly say that the difference between humans and monkeys is only a difference that we make. It's like saying there's absolutly no difference between a human being and a rock.
This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-23-2006 05:06 PM
This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-23-2006 05:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Quetzal, posted 04-23-2006 4:50 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by kalimero, posted 04-23-2006 6:17 PM smak_84 has replied
 Message 87 by Quetzal, posted 04-24-2006 10:20 AM smak_84 has not replied

smak_84
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 303 (306220)
04-23-2006 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by kalimero
04-23-2006 6:17 PM


Re: Wolves and Trees
I'm not saying that they are - but I can only say that because I have a scientific (matterialistic) way of differentiating them.
So how about I treat a human like an inanimate object then? How about I torture an animal if there's no difference between it and a rock? Because there is a difference.
If you were a child that didnt know the difference between them, then yes, I can.
I would ask you to prove this assertion, but I won't because of reasons listed below.
The words 'humans' and 'monkeys' are man-made words, agreed?
If I were to call all humans - 'Bloits', would that make all the formerly catagorized humans, Bloits? Yes it would.
The actual auditory and visual symbols that are the words "human" and "monkey" are. The concepts, however are not human inventions. There are words with the same meaning - cervesa, peeva, beer, bier, et cetera, and they refer to a universal reality that we know as beer. If you were to ask a waiter for a beer and he got you some tar to drink, would you drink the tar as if it were beer? No, because it's objectivly not the same thing (if it is, go ahead...drink some tar). Further if two monkeys reproduce will they make a lizard? No, obviously not. Then they must objectivly be different realities - not dependent on my recognizing them different.
If you cant tell the difference between them then no.
It doesn't matter if you cannot tell the difference between them, there still is a difference. They have independant existences from each other, and different properties - so they are different things.
Unfortunately I cannot continue this discussion (as I've been learning so much from all of you). I've begun some work that's going to keep me from the internet for a while, so I cannot continue these discussions. I thank all of you for helping me learn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by kalimero, posted 04-23-2006 6:17 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by kalimero, posted 04-24-2006 10:21 AM smak_84 has not replied

smak_84
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 303 (306235)
04-24-2006 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by crashfrog
04-23-2006 11:09 PM


Re: About hydrozoa and scyphozoa...
This is my last post, because I've got move soon and I won't have internet access.
In what sense? "Canis" is not the genus of dogs; it's the genus that contains dogs. Members of Canis are dogs only if they belong to the familiaris species.
Now, it may be that the familiaris species contains the organism I posted that picture of, or it may be that it doesn't. As is clear from other posts, there's room for disagreement there.
I don't think there's any point in my responding to this, because as demonstarted I have a lacking in the understanding of taxonomic science.
Then how would those realities not be material? If they can be affected by the material, and their origin is in the material world, they must be, by definition, material - not immaterial.
Why must all existing things be material? Do we know all things are material (now tell me what causes intermolecular attraction: possibly -- not definitly -- but possibly an immaterial reality - immeasurable so it confounds us) Immaterial substances could also describe the alleged happenings of ghosts (if they do occur) and possessions (if they do occur) and what Angels and Demons are (if they exist).
It's not ad hominem. I'm asking questions about your position because I don't understand it. Surely mutual understanding is required for fruitful discussion?
You asked me if I thought humans were vertebrates. This is something most grade schoolers understand and it is an insulting question to ask. That's why this was ad hominem.
What I'm asking you is, if you reject the taxonomy that places humans in superfamily Hominoidea, what else do you reject? If humans do not belong to the family of apes, what family do you put them in?
Refer to the first response.
But assume for a second that, per your argument, we make the ability to create a symphony, for instance, the defining character of humanity. But can you write a symphony? I can't. These epic acts of creation you refer to are the exception among our species, rather than the rule. Does that mean that only a privleged few, the Mozarts and the Einstiens, are truly human? And the rest of us are what, exactly?
Collectivly, as humanity - this has occured because humans exist - because humans are different from apes in an extraordinary way. Collectivly, apes have not accomplished a symphony so they do not have some potential capacity that humans have as humans (not necessarily as individual humans).
don't see the relevance of ethics to this discussion. Could you elaborate? You appear to be using these materials as a dodge.
The ethics uses the terms form and accident so you see how they are used philosophically.
You've never mistaken one thing for another? Not ever? That defies credibility, I must say.
Point taken. But if the difference are only those which we create. Go drink some tar, but think it's actually water and see what happens. There's actually differences between things which are not dependant on how we describe them (there are objective, sepearate existences, that differ from each other).
Another mistake. Take it from someone employed in the sciences - the basis of science is evidence, not philosophy. Scientists don't wait around for philosophers to tell them how to do their jobs - they develop experiments to test theory, and draw narrow conclusions from the evidence. The field of "philosophy of science" is an effort to describe what scientists do, not dictate to them how to do science.
Actually not a mistake. The idea of comparing before to after using dependant and independant variables was a concept thought up by the Ancient Greeks during philosophical debate, thus the most important concept in physical science is a product of philosophical debate.
You don't know that I haven't read them.
What were you talking about earlier when you said this?
If it helps you, pretend that I've actually read the major works of those philosophers and rejected their arguments as unsound and contradicted by the facts.
This seems to imply you haven't (and don't care to) read them. If you have actually read them why don't you just say that you have read them, instead of telling me to "pretend" you've read them. I'm also suggesting some reading, because concepts like form, accident, essential union and accidental unions are concepts that take college students entire semesters to grasp and understand fully (and they read texts on these things). So me trying to convey their meanings in thread debates would take an absurd amount of time...time I unfortunately no longer have.
Again, as I said at the beginning (and in the previous post), this is my last post. I thank you crashfrog, for showing me some areas I can deepen my knowledge. I thank all the rest of the individuals who've also deepened my understanding of these subjects. Farewell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2006 11:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2006 8:39 AM smak_84 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024