If executive awareness is spirit why don't theists believe animals have a soul?

Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
If executive awareness is spirit why don't theists believe animals have a soul?

 

Local theist, Paisley, insists that the spirit we argue does not exist is encapsulated inside consciousness - the executive awareness that neuroscience has not managed to adequately describe.

Pais claims that spirit can only be known by subjective personal experience - cancelling the objective scientific imperative. But his case must include animals. They, apparently, have consciousness, too.

If, as Pais insists, spirit is limited to consciousness and is subjective, do we think his argument must be applied equally to all obviously conscious creatures including dogs, whales and chimpanzees?

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Because it doesn't say so in

Because it doesn't say so in the bible, you silly Goose Smiling


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Lol - yeah.

 

That's quite correct, Rich. Of course, because Pais doesn't usually resort to bible I was hoping the vagaries of his argument in relation to the subjective existence of spirit as awareness might suffice to trip him up - at least in theory.

I'm sure he'd find an escape hatch somewhere...

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK, I don't usually pay any

OK, I don't usually pay any attention to Paisley threads. Did he specifically state that animals cannot have souls?

 

That would seem to beg the question of just what the dividing line is between those who have souls and those who do not. In history, there have been a number of cases made for certain groups of people as not being human.

 

As recently as the 1970's, there were psychologists who published definitions of the requirements to be considered human. Such definitions were made basically so that people with neurological issues could be set apart from the rest of us.

 

Do people with Down's syndrome or catatonic schizophrenia have the “executive awareness” that would qualify them for being ensouled?

 

How about those who have suffered a traumatic brain injury? Terri Schiavo comes to mind on this one. Long before the right-to-life people got on that matter, brain scans showed that she had less remaining brain matter than the average reptile. Yet it was of critical importance to that crowd that she was a human being.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
No, I came up with the animal souls

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

OK, I don't usually pay any attention to Paisley threads. Did he specifically state that animals cannot have souls?

 

That would seem to beg the question of just what the dividing line is between those who have souls and those who do not. In history, there have been a number of cases made for certain groups of people as not being human.

 

As recently as the 1970's, there were psychologists who published definitions of the requirements to be considered human. Such definitions were made basically so that people with neurological issues could be set apart from the rest of us.

 

Do people with Down's syndrome or catatonic schizophrenia have the “executive awareness” that would qualify them for being ensouled?

 

How about those who have suffered a traumatic brain injury? Terri Schiavo comes to mind on this one. Long before the right-to-life people got on that matter, brain scans showed that she had less remaining brain matter than the average reptile. Yet it was of critical importance to that crowd that she was a human being.

 

 

based on a Paisley argument elsewhere. I'm sure Pais would argue there's some spiritual differentiator in the background. He doesn't usually stray far from his pillboxes. Regardless, animals are definitely consciously aware of their surroundings. Right down to bugs. If all animals had consciousness similar to ours it would call into question our treatment of them as resources. Animals get depressed, cranky, they feel happy, contended, they fool around with their friends. Apparently gazelle don't want to be eaten or they would stand there with open hooves and let the lions take a bite. Even cockroaches have the wits to run away from things that are bigger than they are. Maybe consciousness is actually a vital part of functioning as an individual, not of being a human.

I agree with you gene, that brain injury and dementia erode consciousness and higher executive functions. There is certainly a point where the individual is no longer there. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
animal consciousness

Atheistextremist wrote:

based on a Paisley argument elsewhere. I'm sure Pais would argue there's some spiritual differentiator in the background. Regardless, animals are definitely consciously aware of their surroundings. Right down to bugs. If all animals had consciousness similar to ours it would call into question our treatment of them as resources. Animals get depressed, cranky, they feel happy, contended, they fool around with their friends. Apparently gazelle don't want to eaten or they would stand there with open hooves and let the lions take a bite. Even cockroaches have the wits to run away from things that are bigger than they are. Maybe consciousness is actually a vital part of functioning as an individual, not of being a human. 

Self awareness is different than instinct or a reflex.  A cockroach runs if there is a change in air pressure.  They have been studied and the legs running are not attached to a brain response.  So they don't have the wits to run, they have the reflex to run.

Generally, animal behaviorists test for self awareness with mirrors.  Does the animal recognize the animal in the mirror?  What is their response?  I had a dog who would primp - kid you not, he would posture and look and lick his fur in place and look some more.  I believe they have observed chimps primping as well.  If this is the criteria, sheep, cows, gazelles, etc are NOT self aware.  I have never heard of one of these animals ever recognizing themselves in a mirror.  They are more likely to challenge it if they are male (or top female in some species) or get nervous and run if one of the herd females (or minor male).  I haven't heard if pigs have been tested in this fashion.

Personally, I believe some animals are self aware, conscious, in a similar sense that humans are.  But I hesitate to pin that on all animals and I really balk at the idea of self-aware bugs.  Other animals, however, may be self-aware, but it definitely isn't in the same fashion humans are.  I think dogs are self-aware, some more so, some less.  But dogs are the ultimate valley girls - that was so 5 minutes ago.  Except for the most intelligent of dogs, they don't remember from one hour to the next.  Training sticks because of repetition - about 2000 repetitions per cue (aka command).  You get the desired response into their muscle memory.  So I don't think they are self-aware in the same sense as humans. 

We humans like to pattern match - all of these are like this, none of those are like that.  And so some people think all animals are self-aware and some people think they are never self-aware.  I think the truth is in the middle.  Where I usually sit. 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
That's interesting cj

 

I always thought the bugs could see me coming...

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Self awareness is

cj wrote:

Self awareness is different than instinct or a reflex.  A cockroach runs if there is a change in air pressure.  They have been studied and the legs running are not attached to a brain response.  So they don't have the wits to run, they have the reflex to run.

Generally, animal behaviorists test for self awareness with mirrors.  Does the animal recognize the animal in the mirror?  What is their response?  I had a dog who would primp - kid you not, he would posture and look and lick his fur in place and look some more.  I believe they have observed chimps primping as well.  If this is the criteria, sheep, cows, gazelles, etc are NOT self aware.  I have never heard of one of these animals ever recognizing themselves in a mirror.  They are more likely to challenge it if they are male (or top female in some species) or get nervous and run if one of the herd females (or minor male).  I haven't heard if pigs have been tested in this fashion.

Personally, I believe some animals are self aware, conscious, in a similar sense that humans are.  But I hesitate to pin that on all animals and I really balk at the idea of self-aware bugs.  Other animals, however, may be self-aware, but it definitely isn't in the same fashion humans are.  I think dogs are self-aware, some more so, some less.  But dogs are the ultimate valley girls - that was so 5 minutes ago.  Except for the most intelligent of dogs, they don't remember from one hour to the next.  Training sticks because of repetition - about 2000 repetitions per cue (aka command).  You get the desired response into their muscle memory.  So I don't think they are self-aware in the same sense as humans. 

We humans like to pattern match - all of these are like this, none of those are like that.  And so some people think all animals are self-aware and some people think they are never self-aware.  I think the truth is in the middle.  Where I usually sit. 

 

I have an interesting addition.  There is a cardinal that I see occasionally in the morning, perched on my neighbors car window such that it can look at the driver's side mirror.  On two separate occasions a couple of weeks apart it has been there.  I want to observe it more, because it might actually know it is looking at itself.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Local

Atheistextremist wrote:

Local theist, Paisley, insists that the spirit we argue does not exist is encapsulated inside consciousness - the executive awareness that neuroscience has not managed to adequately describe.

Pais claims that spirit can only be known by subjective personal experience - cancelling the objective scientific imperative. But his case must include animals. They, apparently, have consciousness, too.

If, as Pais insists, spirit is limited to consciousness and is subjective, do we think his argument must be applied equally to all obviously conscious creatures including dogs, whales and chimpanzees?

 

You still don't get it. The "awareness" by which you see the world is the same "awareness" by which I see the world and the same "awareness" by which all sentient beings see the world (this includes all living organisms).  There's only one consciousness; it's nonlocal and it's all-pervading (this is what we call God). The notion that an objective reality exists independent of a subjective reality is a myth - a myth which has been rendered obsolete by the not-so-new physics. Get with the program. Dispense with your limited materialistic perspective and start thinking "outside the box." And then maybe (just maybe), you might begin to appreciate the perspective by which I see the world. 

 

Quote:

Near the end of his life, Wigner's thoughts turned more philosophical. In his memoirs, Wigner said: "The full meaning of life, the collective meaning of all human desires, is fundamentally a mystery beyond our grasp. As a young man, I chafed at this state of affairs. But by now I have made peace with it. I even feel a certain honor to be associated with such a mystery." He became interested in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, particularly its ideas of the universe as an all pervading consciousness. In his collection of essays Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays, he commented "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness."

(source: Wikipedia: Eugene Wigner)

 

"Biology is the study of larger organisms, whereas physics is the study of smaller organisms." - Alfred North Whitehead

 

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Because most theists like to

Because most theists like to eat animals, I think they would feel uncomfortable eating something that had a soul like themselves.

I think if you found a theist that believed an animal had a soul, they would very likely be vegetarian as well.

It doesn't matter that it this is not logical, religion is convenience not logic.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:There's only one

Quote:
There's only one consciousness;

Absolutely ridiculous.

Quote:
"Biology is the study of larger organisms, whereas physics is the study of smaller organisms." - Alfred North Whitehead

You theists REALLY have a hard time keeping up eh? You're more than half a century out of date on that false description of biology and physics. Biology is the study of ALL organic matter. Physics is the study of natural forces, like gravity and light.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Quote:There's

Vastet wrote:

Quote:

There's only one consciousness;

Absolutely ridiculous.

Do you know what "nonlocality" means in the context of physics?

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:You still

Paisley wrote:

You still don't get it. The "awareness" by which you see the world is the same "awareness" by which I see the world and the same "awareness" by which all sentient beings see the world (this includes all living organisms).  There's only one consciousness; it's nonlocal and it's all-pervading (this is what we call God).

Why do you call this God?  

 

Is "There's only one conciousness" a metaphor?  I see no good reason to believe that there is a nonlocal force that is the source of a connected consciousness.  

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Yes. What's your point? And

Yes. What's your point? And how does it apply to a supposed single consciousness enveloping all consciousness?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Vastet

Paisley wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Quote:

There's only one consciousness;

Absolutely ridiculous.

Do you know what "nonlocality" means in the context of physics?

 

Do you know what proof means in the context of science?

Since you don't use science on your God theory, you don't give us much reason to trust your physics.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi there, Paisley.

 

Paisley wrote:

 

You still don't get it. The "awareness" by which you see the world is the same "awareness" by which I see the world and the same "awareness" by which all sentient beings see the world (this includes all living organisms).  There's only one consciousness; it's nonlocal and it's all-pervading (this is what we call God). The notion that an objective reality exists independent of a subjective reality is a myth - a myth which has been rendered obsolete by the not-so-new physics. Get with the program. Dispense with your limited materialistic perspective and start thinking "outside the box." And then maybe (just maybe), you might begin to appreciate the perspective by which I see the world. 

 

 

You're quite correct, I still don't get it. I do feel I am part of the self awareness of the universe so I go with with you in the sense of a shared/mutual consciousness tempered by sense inputs and brain morphology. But I think that objective reality existed before we came along a few million years ago and started thinking about it. That stuff, including the atoms of which we and our brains are comprised, existed long before individual consciousness rendered any experience of it subjective seems obvious to me.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Paisley, I normally don't interact with you. So I may be lacking some background. Even so, are you saying that all critters are part of some general experience and that is what you are calling god?

 

Still, the question that comes to mind here is how far down do you go?

 

Gorillas and chimps are not all that good at communication but they can sort of bodge their way through the deal at get a few ideas across.

 

Other animals not so much but we can all bond to some of them. I once had to send a friend a condolence card for the passing of his horse. Seriously, it was that much of a problem for him.

 

I know people who claim to be bonded to their snakes but snakes do not have the neural circuitry to give a shit.

 

I could go farther but the point stands made. Tell me where you draw the line.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 693
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Rich Woods wrote:Because it

Rich Woods wrote:

Because it doesn't say so in the bible, you silly Goose Smiling

Actually if you look in the history of Christianity it did stress vegetarianism quite a lot.  The mythical Garden of Eden was vegetarian and the mythical Adam and Eve were vegetarian.

It wasn't until Constantine came along when all that went away.  Constantine was a big fat meathead who loved meat so he got rid of all that and then suddenly all kinds of meat eating was okay in crazy ChristNUTTERY!

If you look at the Benedictine monks they are vegetarian to this day just like they were thousands of years ago!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com