T
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
It is necessary to respond to your worldview statements. God, in the flesh, identifyed our origin, how we should live, and our ultimate purpose. By the work of Jesus Christ, men saw what God can do.
God bless,
Ed
B
Benadam
Guest
When a dog has a life threatening experience, the intense physiological reaction and the increased chemical secretions in the brain cause the memory of the experience to be recalled involuntarily if it enters into a similar environment. This is a survivla mechanism that makes the animal more likely to survive the event a second time. By overcoming it or avoiding it. If the environment doesn’t in fact threaten it’s life the error does no harm.
When a human being’s life is threatened the intense reaction does the same thing. Unfortunately for us though involuntary memory triggered by strong emotional events hinders our ability to survive and may get us killed. At the very least it renders us unable to socialize properly because the involuntary memory is accompanied by the original intense emotions and cloud our ability to be in the time and place we really are. There are many psychological names for the disorder it causes.
I think this reaction to death is evidence of a profound difference in the way humans and other animals percieve the self and the world…
When a human being’s life is threatened the intense reaction does the same thing. Unfortunately for us though involuntary memory triggered by strong emotional events hinders our ability to survive and may get us killed. At the very least it renders us unable to socialize properly because the involuntary memory is accompanied by the original intense emotions and cloud our ability to be in the time and place we really are. There are many psychological names for the disorder it causes.
I think this reaction to death is evidence of a profound difference in the way humans and other animals percieve the self and the world…
W
wanstronian
Guest
I treat them differently because I’m able to have a more interactive and rewarding relationship with them due to our common intellectual* facility.
Objectively, they both have the same right to life. If it was up to me to subjectively choose, then all else being equal, I’d save the human in preference to the gorilla. This is because the human has the ability, due to its more advanced intellect, to contribute more effectively to the society to which I belong. I don’t believe that humans have greater intrinsic right to life than gorillas.
That said, if the human in question were a serial pedophile who contributed nothing worthwhile to the world, then I’d probably save the gorilla and let the priest swing.
Yes, you have pointed out ways in which we are unique. However, you have not proved that these are the result of an extra-corporeal soul, you’ve just filled a gap in understanding with a supernatural cause that fits with your existing religious beliefs.
Consider this: If humans didn’t exist, then dolphins would be unique in their levels of ‘sense of self’ and community-based lifestyle. Uniqueness is not a qualifier for the possession of a soul. Your argument amounts to wishful thinking, and is not backed by any evidence whatsoever. You apparently refuse to accept that these ‘human’ qualities can have emerged from our advanced intellect, yet you provide no basis for this refusal, or for your subsequent appeal to supernatural causes. You offer no alternative explanation, you just - yet again - say “God did it.”
And I see you have resorted to your common tactic - if someone can’t fully explain an alternative to your arbitrary pet hypothesis, you think that somehow proves you right - despite the fact you have no explanation either! When someone challenges your unsubstantiated claim, you try to turn it around and make it sound like your opponent is making wild claims instead. It’s the classic “tu quoque” fallacy on your part. You ignore the principles of parsimony unless they serve your purpose; and you seem blissfully unaware of the inherent dangers in calling up unproven, intangible, supernatural parameters that can never be demonstrated to exist, in support of your desired conclusion. Your unique brand of logic has been repeatedly destroyed on this forum. You don’t ever seem to learn from it!
I base my conclusion on the overwhelming amount of consistent evidence from many branches of science, that shows, beyond doubt, the evolution of all animals - including humans - from a common ancestor.
It’s not “self-evident” - you need to have the intellectual courage to let go of your superstition and examine the evidence, no matter where it leads.
Well, no it isn’t. You’re using the same logic as primitive man did when he saw lightning. He couldn’t explain it, so he assumed it was an angry god. Your logic is failing you again.
There is no evidence at all that a person is not purely the product of the brain. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest the contrary. I believe I have cited this evidence to you before.
This is a poor attempt at turning the tables; the fact is that you’ve listed a set of differences betweeen humans and [other] animals, and I’ve pointed out that this just a list. You now seem to be labelling this as a hypothesis, and apparently want me to prove that a list is a list!
As for a belief in “cognitive deltas,” I’m not sure what you’re after. You want me to prove to you that different creatures have different levels of intellect? Well, just look at their behaviour. Would you say that a spider is the intellectual equal of a dog? A dog the equal of a dolphin? You’re really clutching at straws if you’re trying to use this as a platform for argumentation.
- We’re not really talking about pure cognition here, but about intellect. I’ve changed the terminology in my post, other than where it’s a quote from a previous post. Hopefully you will agree that we’re still talking about the same thing.
T
tonyrey
Guest
W
wanstronian
Guest
I can think of no other sensible reason at the moment.
On the fact that they are alive. I don’t believe there’s a set of intrinsic properties that give animals the right to life. The right to life of various animals is provided by man-made laws, I don’t pretend to know the process by which various protective laws were enacted.
That, and a sense of empathy with one’s own kind, I guess.
No - admittedly I was unclear in my previous post - hopefully cleared that up now. Our right to life is man-made.
Your desperate need for elegant rhetoric lets you down a little here.
I was just having a little joke. The principle holds, though - if I were given the ability to choose, my choice would not be based purely on the intellectual ability of the two animals in question, but on their relative value or potential for damage, in terms of their environment and community.
Have it your way - you’ve filled many gaps with unproven, undetectable, unnecessary supernatural causes. The number of gaps is irrelevant as your choice of gap filler adds zero value. Many times zero is still zero.
Here again you resort to assertion. How do you know that natural causes are inadequate? Were natural causes an inadequate explanation for lightning, before the science existed to describe those natural causes? The absence of scientific explanation does not imply the absence of natural cause. Natural as in detectable and testable by science.
No, I begin, where possible, using my hierarchical model of the world.
I’m not controlled by them, no. I believe that physicalism is true in principle, false in practice. The more we learn, the more we realise we don’t know.
What facts are you talking about? The unique properties that humans have? It’s not that I don’t **attempt **to fit them in - I’m not a scientist so wouldn’t know where to start hypothesising - it’s just that those gaps are extant at this time from a scientific point of view, and I don’t feel the need to fill such gaps with baseless speculation and unverifiable supernatural gobbledygook. I’m happy with the fact that we don’t yet have all the answers - this has always been the case. Science is working on the answers to these questions, so watch this space.
But that’s an arbitrary distinction that you’ve made. It’s just your opinion. You have no independent proof that what you say is true.
There you go again - spouting the argument from ignorance. You’re right - it is as simple as that. And it’s a very poor platform from which to go positing a soul.
One of my first responses was "Define ‘spiritual.’ " It can be defined in purely intellectual terms. Furthermore, it can be defined purely in the context of those intellectual properties apparently unique to humans - love, empathy etc (although there is significant evidence that other mammals have these same abilities). In which case, I agree with you. If you define it in terms of an extra-corporeal soul, I will again just point out that there is zero evidence to support the existence of such a phenomenen.
Yes. Absolutely. We are as much biological organisms as gorillas, dogs, and carrots.
I can’t explain it scientifically. But I can see no reason why it shouldn’t be true. There’s certainly no good reason to fill the gap(s) in uderstanding with arbitrary supernatural phenomena. Again, refer to primitive man and the lightning. Were they right to posit angry gods?
No. As above.
You mean, did I imply it? Or can I prove it to be true? Yes to the first question, no to the second. But what evidence does exist, points to the mind being a pure product of brain function.
L
Light1111
Guest
This story is so beautiful and moving! Did you know that several dogs died in the Trade Towers on 9/11, rescuing civilians who were trapped? I saw a special on one labrador retriever in particular, who kept running in, going after the people who had passed out on the stairs, and pulling them to safety by their shirt collar. He even was gentle with their head, ensuring that their heads did not bang against the floor. He did this over and over again, and finally, he did not come out of the building anymore. The firefighter who told this story cried, all these years later, just thinking about that sweet dog. Imagine–when your dog rescued you, he loved you personally! He had a relationship with you. This dog didn’t even know the victims he rescued! What a moving story!
I’ll follow up on your advice and check out the book you mentioned, by Kerasote! I have a couple of excellent recommendations you might enjoy! One is called “The Personality of the Dog” by Brandt Aymar and Edward Segarin. This is a lovely exploration of the big heart and big personality dogs possess, and puts forth the idea that dogs are a lot more like people than we think! I’ve also read several books by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, who has written extensively on the capacity for emotional expression seen in the animal kingdom. One is called “When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals,” and another, “The Emperor’s Embrace: Reflections on Animal Families and Fatherhood.” I doubt many people could read these books without shedding a few tears! Deeply moving. Pet owners will not be surprised, but for anyone who feels animals are “lower than humans,” you just might find yourself moved to a new world view!
Regardless of whether animals actually have souls, I doubt we can go wrong by treating them with loving kindness, and assuming that they do. How could God take issue with that?
Peace!
W
wanstronian
Guest
It’s a sweet story, but don’t forget that these were trained SAR dogs, not selfless philanthropists! They did what they were trained to do, and did it extremely well.
I couldn’t agree more - if animals (including humans) have souls, then non-human animals are as much entitled to them as human animals are.
- Status