E
- Status
S
Skadi
Guest
That is a good question, personally I do think removing parts of the brain would seriously effect your personality if not render a person totally devoid of intelligence, I mean Lobotomy works.I have been wondering…
What information would we discover if we explored that hypothetical as if it actually happened? What would the physical evidence tell us and not tell us?
When we observe the spark of divine life in ourselves, can that spark override the hypothetical? Or more importantly, can that spark exist along with the hypothetical?
I was imagining what it would be like if there were a spot in my brain which was connected to my loving chocolate ice cream. Could I look at a bowl of chocolate ice cream, desire chocolate ice cream, mouthwatering, and then choose vanilla ice cream?
Genesis, first three chapters, and the Catholic Church teach that the first two humans were human because their nature unified the material and immaterial into one nature which is fundamentally the same as our nature. We have to have a material body in order to live and be nourished in our material environment; but, is the body the only thing we need in order to live?
Am I correct that you believe that there is a fundamental spark of divine live, a spiritual principle, aka soul in humans? It seems to me that we are looking at the basic concept of soul as existing in both humans and animals. The basic concept of soul is that it animates material
matter–soul and body idea. Animals and humans are a huge step up from living organisms such as plants and bacteria. We need to check Aristotle for that basic definition of soul.
One more thing which I keep wondering. Did the gorilla Binti Jua recognize a “soul” in the unconscious child? I am using the word “soul” as a principle or sign of life. The difference between your approach to soul and my approach to soul is that I consider the soul animating humans as immortal and the soul animating animals as mortal along with the animal’s material anatomy.
P.S.
Thoughts for very much later in our discussion. When I look at Adam as he is described in the first three chapters of Genesis, I see ourselves being and doing like Adam. Perhaps, our existence is the best evidence for two first human parents of mankind.
The gorilla Binti Jua is the heroine when a child fell into the Ape Pit at Brookfield Zoo.
chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/08/16/15-years-ago-today-gorilla-rescues-boy-who-fell-in-ape-pit/
However I get what you are saying. Because I am a sociologist I have to tend to think we do not get our personality from our soul (though who knows maybe our personality runs off on it). People’s attitudes and behaviors can generally be predicted or followed back to a source, either genetic or environmental. This the saying “hard places bread hard men”, environment and culture have a great effect. I can’t stand Indian food yet billions in India enjoy it because they grew up with it.
Yes I’d say that the soul is your spiritual component, the spark that starts life. I would imagine she did, she saw another living creature in need and helps it, dolphins are famous for similarly rescuing drowning swimmers.
S
Skadi
Guest
I have a belief in ALL the GODS. That’s what I have belief in.
S
Skadi
Guest
Ill equate myself to an animal, for I am one, just a more intelligent one.
Now please allow me to explain what I meant, if we are going to use intelligence as a measure and sign of the soul, there are animals with a higher IQ than some mentally handicapped individuals. I was not attempting to say they are inferior but showing that intelligence is not connected to ones soul.
G
grannymh
Guest
I also partially disagree with post 244…and I believe in God.
I say partially because there seemed to be two issues. 1. The characteristics of the spiritual soul. 2. The intellective abilities of animals without the spiritual soul.
I hesitate to address the issue of animal intelligence because I am not sure I have the current vocabulary.
When it comes to intelligence in animals, and there are plenty demonstrations of this intelligence, I would say that the particular animal is highly sentient. Sentient and sentience can also be part of developed natural instincts. Some animals can “learn” better ways to survive as they apply their instincts to new environments, situations, etc. That is not the same as rationality in humans. For example. Some birds can migrate miles to warmer environments and then return; but they have not figured out how to land on the moon.
Sentient and sentience, or whatever words are currently being used in research, do not refer to the capabilities of a spiritual, immaterial soul. Yes, I do agree that animals do not have immortal souls. And I agree that animals do not know right from wrong in the same sense that we do. Yet, they have to know right from wrong or they would not survive in the wild.
I did not agree with some points in post 244 because I do not consider animals as having a “very limited intelligence.”
There is a research paper which claimed that some members of monkey species can learn “math” just like college students. Yes, both the monkeys and the students did learn something; therefore, all the participants could be considered intelligent. What is important about this kind of research are the sections on methods and materials. It is the nitty-gritty of these sections which showed that the animals were “intelligent”, but not in the same way that the college students are intelligent.
Personally, I think that Genesis 2:18-20 helps explain the difference in “intelligence” between animals and the first human being. It definitely designates the human species as different in kind from the rest of the critters. So, what is it that makes us different.
.
S
Skadi
Guest
I don’t think of our personality as coming from the soul. I guess you could call a soul a persons life force, that which gives them life and connects to that which is beyond the physical. I don’t believe much if any of our personality or decision making comes from our soul.
I don’t have any real evidence to site (nor does anyone) except my own religions texts which I don’t interprite literally. We have a very different idea of what a soul is. It is not a personified entity until one dies, it is life force up to that point and splits into various parts on death. But that’s not what I’m arguing I’m arguing all life has a soul.
Also, unlike life itself intelligence can certainly evolve or conversely, devolve, and in fact the average human IQ has been dropping the past few thousand years, its believed to be because we developed city’s which allow the less intelligent better odds of survival.
We’re talking a scale of millions of years here but the development of brains (or more literally brain cavities) ante shown in the fossil record. Intelligence is the greatest quality to survive a species can have, which is why our clawless, Fangless ancestors developed as they did, they needed intelligence to compensate. I think its perfectly feasible for this to develop on its own, sense there are other animals at near human intelligence.
G
grannymh
Guest
Quick comment about sociology in post 280. When I was young, the question was “nature or nurture”. I am not a sociologist.
Intelligence per se is not a measure or sign of any kind of soul. The sign of the spiritual soul is the presence of the tools of reason,
self-reflection, logical evaluation, abstract concepts, analytical thought, productive imagination, and so on. These abilities are expressed via the brain. They are present in some form in every human; however, if the brain is faulty in some way, those abilities would be inhibited.
In my post 283, There seems to be two separate issues.
- The characteristics of the spiritual soul.
- The intellective abilities of animals without the spiritual soul.
plus a third issue
3.The difference between a mortal soul and an immortal soul and how that difference should be handled in the case of animals.
R
Rau
Guest
That science cannot address soul reflects the limits of science, and ought say nothing about soul. The doctrines surrounding the soul will not find proof from scientific endeavour. C’est la vie. This is only a problem for those who, in effect, worship science. That God is not bound by science should not be a novel idea.
S
Skadi
Guest
Yes, personally I see the problem of nature versus nurture as similar to a page from a coloring book. It comes with a outline (our genetic predisposition) and is filled in by colors (our life experience). Eventually as a picture forms previous strokes may conform to previous ones (past experience influencing our understanding of current experience). Eventually a picture will take shape, which may or may not be what the original design of the lines intended, but they are still there. Not a perfect analogy I know but a good one.
However I must disagree with you, the functions you list are products of the brain, of intelligence. Just because we humans are the only animals capable of complex abstract thought does not prove we are spiritually different. This ability is a massive evolutionary advantage and it does not surprise me at all looking at our evolutionary history we developed as such. Likewise I think that if we all disappeared today a species with the same capacity for thought would likewise evolve.
My mental illness allegory was poor so here is another one. What do you believe to have been the spiritual nature of the Neanderthals? Very similar to Homo Sapiens, using tools, living in a primitive society, with language and primitive culture, and relatively only slightly less intelligent than man? Do you believe as a species they were animals without Immortal souls? This alwase interests me to ask.
E
edwest2
Guest
Modern humans have Neanderthal DNA. Neanderthals were fully human.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140129134956.htm
Peace,
Ed
S
Skadi
Guest
No, they were Homo Neanderthalas not Homo Sapien. Roughly 1-4% of human DNA is Neanderthal but just because two species are capeable of breeding does not make them the same. Lions and Tigers can produce offspring, so are Lions Tigers? Or Tigers Lions? The same for Canis Lupis (the wolf) and Canis Familiars (domestic dogs) they can interbreed but are separate species.
The general scientific consensus is that Homo Sapien is a destinction species from Homo Neanderthalas. With a genetic differentiation of roughly .3% Stadard Human is twice as different from Standard Neanderthal as the two most different humans are from eachother. So scientifically speeking, no Neanderthals are NOT Homo Sapien Neanderthalas, but a destinct species, Homo Neanderthalas. Modern mans closest reletive.
S
Skadi
Guest
newscientist.com/article/dn3744-chimps-are-human-gene-study-implies.html#.Ux6Dzba9Kc0
Further evidence, a recent study found Bonobo Chimps share 99.4% of DNA with humans and advocates moving them into the genus Homo with Humans and other near humans. Do you agree that Chimpanzees are human?
A
Arandur
Guest
Which is why we people of faith are busy clarifying the place of science, and the place of theology. What science has given us does not need to be wholly discarded.
So you think the hominids just happened to look like human beings, but were in no way related or used by God in relation to human beings?
The hominids were all roaming around, and then God, liking their appearance perhaps, took up some new clay and fashioned Adam, giving him incredibly similar DNA to those hominids, then breathing a soul into him?
And then Adam and Eve and their children lived alongside those hominids for probably thousands of years until they went extinct?
Seems to make much more sense to me that, through the hominids, God was preparing the human physical form, and at a certain point took one and made it a whole new creation–Adam.
Science also cannot exclude a soul.
Given that most people have some level of common sense about their own self-awareness, the inertia of Catholic cultural underpinnings, and pride, I think it will still be quite a while before more than just the academics and a portion of the gullible saps they manage to indoctrinate really embrace what you suggest and discard the soul.
It’s surely a danger we must speak against, but you’re not going to get very far in speaking against it if you’re also going to disregard the valid observations various scientific disciplines have made with regard to things like the age of the earth and evolutionary processes.
And you certainly can’t disregard scientific hypotheses with much apparent validity without providing sufficient physical evidence and logical argument to demonstrate their falsehood. In fact, it would be illogical and a disservice to Truth to do so.
R
Rau
Guest
FYI from Wikipedia:
The Neanderthals are an extinct species of human in the genus Homo, possibly a subspecies of Homo sapiens. They are very closely related to modern humans, differing in DNA by only 0.3%, which however is twice that of the widest DNA gap found among contemporary humans.
A
Arandur
Guest
Wow, very interesting that you would say this, considering that essentially the same thing could be said of most of those hominids that you’ve been claiming were merely animals.
How much DNA sharing makes a creature “Human” in your eyes? Hominids share much more with us than chimpanzees, yet chimpanzees share quite a bit, our major difference being a fused chromosome pair–a genetic change demonstrating relation that evolutionary theory accurately predicts, btw.
I actually hold a narrower view than you. I don’t think Neanderthals were human beings, at least not early ones, and not by virtue of genetics. I don’t think genetics determines it. I think souls do. And I don’t see true, strong evidence for the human soul (based on the capabilities everyone here seems to agree with attributing to the soul except for Skadi) until the Great Leap Forward (“behavioral modernity”), some 50,000 years ago, originating in a single location…i.e., the Garden of Eden.
As for the nature of that soul, I think there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest our extra-ordinary abilities reside in it, rather than solely in mere physical accidents of biology, as the products of intelligence that we are describing are immaterial, and cannot be contained or generated solely by mere matter.
I’d leave that issue at this: there seems to me no more reason to assume a “soul” is what gives a “life spark” (an immaterial concept in itself) than to assume that a brain alone is the sole determinant of intelligence. If your brain can do all that, why would you need a soul to animate you?
The soul is reduced to a very cheap thing with barely any function, and presumably the same for the most basic single-celled organism as for a human; the brain elevated beyond the physical, and varying tremendously by degrees.
The Catholic view–that given by Divine Revelation–gives far more dignity and variety to life. And yes, it recognizes souls (different in nature and kind) in living things beyond humans. I’m not even sure they are all necessarily mortal souls; seems there’s room for some enduring element without claiming anything near the special character of the human soul (after all, angelic beings are different in kind than humans, and are immortal; why cannot there be lesser immortal souls than humans?–I don’t know of Catholic teaching that would prevent such speculation).
A
Arandur
Guest
I think this is a major misrepresentation of how evolution is supposed to work. No, intelligence is NOT the greatest quality to survive. Nature is truly ambivalent to what traits or qualities are “better” than others. It all depends, on a great many factors. All that matters in evolution is whether a species is effective at reproduction.
Bacteria are after all some of the best survivors of any species. Cockroaches and crocodiles have been around far longer than humans.
Hominids, in fact, despite their greater intelligence than any other non-human living species, obviously had a pretty darn poor track record for survival–they’re all extinct. And even homo sapiens, with population bottlenecks and such, really hasn’t been doing swell in comparison to other species until the onset of civilization.
Moreover, the above statement lends a chicken-and-egg problem. As the theory goes, Man and his species-relatives became physically weaker after exhibiting greater intelligence. Intelligence was a substitute for physical prowess; physical prowess was no longer such a great determinant for survival and reproductive potential.
But to say that intelligence has any special evolutionary value I think is as much a popular misconception as the idea that evolution has a “goal” or “aim” to develop “higher order” creatures, that some creatures are “more evolved” or “less evolved” than others. Nonsense. Evolution describes the process of change, a mechanism influenced by many factors. It is not an intelligent thing of itself driving towards a goal–those who espouse such a thing make evolution into their god.
No, it is God Himself who has the Great Design. It is He who crafted all natural laws and processes–including any type of evolution that may actually be occurring. It is He who has always had intentional ends in mind for His Creation. And, most certainly, He specially, specifically, and truly intended and planned for, from all eternity, the existence of every human being that ever was, is, or will be.
Inasmuch as evolution is happening, it is merely a tool in His toolbox, one He crafted for His intentional purposes. We need not fear studying and describing those tools and His works, for it is glorifying in Him to do so.
And of course, as I told a coworker today who had just watched the re-released “Cosmos,” how can the findings of true and proper study of Creation possibly be in conflict with He who Created it?
S
Skadi
Guest
To respond to your whole post,
The reason inteligence is the best quality all around is that it is useful in all situations with no serious drawbacks. Thick fur limits a species to cooler environments, but with inteligece man has invented removeable clothing, in the process removing the advantage of being hairy and leading to a decline in that trait. Similarly as we discovered tools and traps physical size and strength were no longer as usefull as they once were. Despite changes in the enviroment inteligence ALWASE retains value without drawback.
Now obviously simple life like single cells are operating on a different plain than us being microbial and not having the capacity to develope inteligence because of their small size but larger animals like us can. Ultimately tools, a product of inteligence, are what allowed man to establish dominance by replicating the best traits of other animals such as fur and claws.
While there are many valuable traits and their value depends apon the enviroment their is a reason inteligence trumped strength in mans evolution and why the most inteligent species is dominant today. Inteligence is the only trait which is literally useful at all times. Hunters tend to be smarter than their prey and we are the smartest hunter of all.
I understand and very much respect your thiestic evolution theory, it is certainly consistent in that it does not conflict with science, I simply disagree. I Think I am here not because I am a member of a chosen race, but because my ancestors fought and clawed their way up from the primal muck. They lived, fought, and died, but their line went on, and I am the product of that millions of years of natural selection. My ancestors were better at surviving and reproducing than competition, I owe my life to them in my oppinion, not a divine plan.
A
Abu
Guest
There is no basis for denying that we are rational human beings. That is why being, goodness, truth, beauty, virtue, honour, ambition, justice, wisdom – these ideas are beyond the grasp of any bodily sense organ. They require a spiritual power to comprehend them. This power is present in a spiritual substance which we call the human soul, present at the moment of conception of the human person. Since they utilize the irreducible complexity of the brain, naturally injury to the brain impairs its function, as do drugs. We are not souls only but bodies with souls. No one assumes that we are spirits only.
Thomas Huxley, who invented the term “agnostic”, seemed to think a little about other matters, on occasion: “The moral progress of society depends not on imitating the cosmic process (i.e. the evolutionary struggle for survival) but on combating it.” (Evolution *and Ethics and Other Essays, *New York, 1914, p 37). Further, with a pre-occupation with the chemistry of space, it seems strange to ignore the fact that science itself arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else – because of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is a strange “speculative theology” that can ignore that fact.
Antony Flew, the most notorious atheist, now attests to reason and is now a deist.
“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence,” he affirms. "I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source.
“Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than half a century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature.” (There Is a God, 2007, pp. 88-89).
Brain injuries, tests, exposure to magnetism or medication have been shown to profoundly alter a person’s personality, sense of right and wrong, decision making ability.
Even Friedrich Nietzsche (‘God is dead’) wrote: “Strictly speaking there is no such thing as science ‘without any presuppositions’… a philosophy, a ‘faith’, must always be there first, so that science can acquire a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method, a right to exist… It is still a metaphysical faith that underlines our faith in science.” (Genealogy of Morals III, 23-24).
G
grannymh
Guest
97 genes out of 20,000-25,000 human genes were compared.
- Status