Consciousness and soul

[billcu1]

I guess the church teaches that animal souls cease to exist. Now what is the purpose of existing if it’s not to progress? I know the church teaches that humans have a soul. Now what is consciousness? I guess if I can I would like to bring in as much metaphysics and philosophy as possible. Aristotlean, Thomsim Hellistic philosophy, eastern beliefs concerning animals from for example the vedas and such. Anything I can find. This is rather important to me.

Thanks.

 

[dmar198]

I guess the church teaches that animal souls cease to exist. Now what is the purpose of existing if it’s not to progress?

The purpose of the soul is to give life to the body. When it’s finished doing that, its purpose is fulfilled. Therefore, when an animal’s body dies, there is nothing left for the soul to give life to. It’s done, it’s finished. The purpose of man’s soul, on the other hand, continues to give life to man’s spirit even after the body is dead. We know that man has a spirit because he does spiritual things that the body can’t do by itself: he reasons, he wills, and he loves. But animals can’t do those things, and therefore they do not have spirits.

 

[feltmeanings23]

The purpose of the soul is to give life to the body. When it’s finished doing that, its purpose is fulfilled. Therefore, when an animal’s body dies, there is nothing left for the soul to give life to. It’s done, it’s finished. The purpose of man’s soul, on the other hand, continues to give life to man’s spirit even after the body is dead. We know that man has a spirit because he does spiritual things that the body can’t do by itself: he reasons, he wills, and he loves. But animals can’t do those things, and therefore they do not have spirits.

Would you say that humans have “spiritual souls,” whereas animals have physical souls?

 

[billcu1]

The purpose of the soul is to give life to the body. When it’s finished doing that, its purpose is fulfilled. Therefore, when an animal’s body dies, there is nothing left for the soul to give life to. It’s done, it’s finished. The purpose of man’s soul, on the other hand, continues to give life to man’s spirit even after the body is dead. We know that man has a spirit because he does spiritual things that the body can’t do by itself: he reasons, he wills, and he loves. But animals can’t do those things, and therefore they do not have spirits.

Taking what you say at face value, without asking anymore questions and digging deeper that might be so. But also that means that the animal life is useless and has no purpose and is not needed. There’s nothing there to progress. I’m not quite sure where you philosophy comes from, and I’d like to know; but I have read that other beings in the spiritual worlds emmanate through the animal life to gain experience. The whole point of life is to gain experience. And do some kind of work.

 

[JimG]

Would you say that humans have “spiritual souls,” whereas animals have physical souls?

Yes. Catholic philosophy would put it this way: animals have material souls; humans have spiritual souls.

As to uselessness. All living beings have a soul which animates them, even amoebas and bacteria. Except for humans, those souls are material. It is not a matter of utility. All of creation has utility.

 

[ynotzap]

ConsciousnesThere are three species that exhibit an animate activity coming from within the species. They are vegitable, animal, and human. There is vegitative life, animal life, and human life. The vegitative life exhibits activities as growth, healing, even producing seeds for propagation, dependence on out side sources for its life, as sun, water, chemical, and activity produced by the sun, It is well organized into a specific pattern. It is said to have a material soul, the source of its immanent activity.

An animal has similar features as vegitative life with the addition of the five senses, and the ability of locomotion, it passes on its life through propagation, like the vegitative life, there is sperm, and ovaries. It is said to also have a material soul, it is a more complex species than plants. The material soul is the source of it’s immanent activity It depends on outside sources for life.

A human has similar features as both vegitative and animal life, with the addition of a spiritual soul, it’s source of immanent activity. With the soul comes intelligence, volition (the will) self-awareness, intellectual memory, all spiritual realities. This makes an entirely different species. We are homo-sapiens, knowing man

This is why as Catholics we can’t accept that a human evolved from an animal, simply because and animal can’t give what it doesn’t possess, a spiritual soul The soul is understood to be infused into the body at its conception (in general) The activity observed in the development of the conceptus is human life, and sacred We have animality united to rationality, we are not animals and we are not angels, we are in between We are matter and spirit. The spirit can not be destroyed by matter. Consciousness is the activity of the soul in its faculties, and the activity produced in the body.
I view the animal as a sophisticated biological computer programed by God

 

[billcu1]

ConsciousnesThere are three species that exhibit an animate activity coming from within the species. They are vegitable, animal, and human. There is vegitative life, animal life, and human life. The vegitative life exhibits activities as growth, healing, even producing seeds for propagation, dependence on out side sources for its life, as sun, water, chemical, and activity produced by the sun, It is well organized into a specific pattern. It is said to have a material soul, the source of its immanent activity.

An animal has similar features as vegitative life with the addition of the five senses, and the ability of locomotion, it passes on its life through propagation, like the vegitative life, there is sperm, and ovaries. It is said to also have a material soul, it is a more complex species than plants. The material soul is the source of it’s immanent activity It depends on outside sources for life.

A human has similar features as both vegitative and animal life, with the addition of a spiritual soul, it’s source of immanent activity. With the soul comes intelligence, volition (the will) self-awareness, intellectual memory, all spiritual realities. This makes an entirely different species. We are homo-sapiens, knowing man

This is why as Catholics we can’t accept that a human evolved from an animal, simply because and animal can’t give what it doesn’t possess, a spiritual soul The soul is understood to be infused into the body at its conception (in general) The activity observed in the development of the conceptus is human life, and sacred We have animality united to rationality, we are not animals and we are not angels, we are in between We are matter and spirit. The spirit can not be destroyed by matter. Consciousness is the activity of the soul in its faculties, and the activity produced in the body.
I view the animal as a sophisticated biological computer programed by God

I myself agree with you. Animal, vegetable, and human but I would add a fourth. Minerals. That would be a much more dormant consciousness than the plant. The alchemists have always believed this. And they deal intimately with nature and the natural world.

 

[ynotzap]

As I see it consciousness has to do with awareness, and knowing and this can only be accomplished by spiritual intelligence, there is sense awareness eg. animals. Only those with spiritual intelligence, with the power of reasoning are said to be conscious, with awareness, and feeling in an intelligent being.

How in the world is mineral conscious? Are you associating activity found in matter, with consciousness? Plants and animals react to sense and external stimuli, but I wouldn’t say they are conscious, self aware or rational. There may be some ideas saying that matter is a living thing because of movement, but its not movement that comes from within as animated entities exhibit

 

[balto]

As I see it consciousness has to do with awareness, and knowing and this can only be accomplished by spiritual intelligence, there is sense awareness eg. animals. Only those with spiritual intelligence, with the power of reasoning are said to be conscious, with awareness, and feeling in an intelligent being.

How in the world is mineral conscious? Are you associating activity found in matter, with consciousness? Plants and animals react to sense and external stimuli, but I wouldn’t say they are conscious, self aware or rational. There may be some ideas saying that matter is a living thing because of movement, but its not movement that comes from within as animated entities exhibit

I would disagree that consciousness is a uniquely human attribute. According to the Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophical tradition, sensitive animals are indeed conscious because they have sense perceptions that are used to seek certain ends that perfect their natures. I would venture as far as claiming that they experience qualia like humans do due to their possession of sense organs. What they cannot do is utilize conceptual reason which makes use of abstract universals and thinking in the form of pure functions. These processes cannot be corporeal because all matter is particulate yet universals and concepts are by nature general and hence non-particulate.

As to the mineral comment, unless minerals are capable of immanent causation they would not be considered to be living.

 

[billcu1]

I would disagree that consciousness is a uniquely human attribute. According to the Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophical tradition, sensitive animals are indeed conscious because they have sense perceptions that are used to seek certain ends that perfect their natures. I would venture as far as claiming that they experience qualia like humans do due to their possession of sense organs. What they cannot do is utilize conceptual reason which makes use of abstract universals and thinking in the form of pure functions. These processes cannot be corporeal because all matter is particulate yet universals and concepts are by nature general and hence non-particulate.

As to the mineral comment, unless minerals are capable of immanent causation they would not be considered to be living.

I don’t know what immanent causation is; but the alchemists describe their consciousness as a “dreamless” sleep. Plants are more like a “dreaming sleep”. I don’t know if any saints or prominent Catholics were alchemists. I will look that up.

Ok Benedictine monk Rabalais and other monks. I’m also reading the church was against it. I don’t know if that’s true or not. I have made plant preparations and know alchemists who have the “plant stone” and so on. But did the church speak against this? I wan’t aware of that if they did. Well I appreciate all (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[billcu1]

I would disagree that consciousness is a uniquely human attribute. According to the Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophical tradition, sensitive animals are indeed conscious because they have sense perceptions that are used to seek certain ends that perfect their natures. I would venture as far as claiming that they experience qualia like humans do due to their possession of sense organs. What they cannot do is utilize conceptual reason which makes use of abstract universals and thinking in the form of pure functions. These processes cannot be corporeal because all matter is particulate yet universals and concepts are by nature general and hence non-particulate.

As to the mineral comment, unless minerals are capable of immanent causation they would not be considered to be living.

Can you explain “immanent causation”? Is this Aristotle?

 

[balto]

Can you explain “immanent causation”? Is this Aristotle?

Yes, it is an Aristotelian notion. Immanent causation refers to causation that originates and terminates in the same source usually for the good of the thing in question. It is characteristic of life because life undertakes specific causal processes for the benefit of itself. For example, when an animal initiates the process of consuming food the animal initiates the action for the flourishing of the animal itself. Non-life is only capable of so-called transeunt causation where if it initiates a causal process the process ends in something outside of itself, like a rock rolling down a hill and colliding into another rock. Life exhibits both immanent and transeunt causation.

I would think that minerals only exhibit transeunt causation because the process of crystallization is initiated externally and then terminates in the mineral.

 

[dmar198]

Taking what you say at face value, without asking anymore questions and digging deeper that might be so. But also that means that the animal life is useless and has no purpose and is not needed.

No, because animals have a purpose and usefulness in this life, where we do need them. Their purpose is real but it is tied to this world.

There’s nothing there to progress.

That’s true but that doesn’t mean they aren’t useful in this life. Something can have meaning for us here without continuing on after death, because we will continue on after death and we are affected by animals.

I’m not quite sure where you philosophy comes from, and I’d like to know;

Scripture and Tradition and scholastic philosophy. Scripture indicates that animals were created for man: “let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26) And: “The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.” (Genesis 9:2-3)

It also indicates that animal life is tied to the existence of the body: “the life of [animal] flesh is in the blood.” (Lev. 17:14) This seems to imply that as goes the blood, so goes the soul.

St. John Damascene said: “All [animals], indeed, are for the seasonable use of man: but of them some are for food, such as stags, sheep, deer, and such like: others for service such as camels, oxen, horses, asses, and such like: and others for enjoyment, such as apes, and among birds, jays and parrots, and such like.” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith Book 2)

From logic I think we can learn that animal souls don’t continue after death, as I think St. Thomas Aquinas shows: “no operation of the sensitive part of the soul can be performed without the body. In the souls of brute animals, however, there is no operation superior to those of the sensitive part, since they neither understand nor reason. This is evident from the fact that all animals of the same species operate in the same way, as though moved by nature and not as operating by art; every swallow builds its nest and every spider spins its web, in the same manner. The souls of brutes, then, are incapable of any operation that does not involve the body. Now, since every substance is possessed of some operation, the soul of a brute animal will be unable to exist apart from its body; so that it perishes along with the body.” (Summa Contra Gentiles Book II Chapter 82)

but I have read that other beings in the spiritual worlds emmanate through the animal life to gain experience. The whole point of life is to gain experience. And do some kind of work.

I don’t think that idea has any foundation in Catholic teaching.

 

[ynotzap]

I would disagree that consciousness is a uniquely human attribute. According to the Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophical tradition, sensitive animals are indeed conscious because they have sense perceptions that are used to seek certain ends that perfect their natures. I would venture as far as claiming that they experience qualia like humans do due to their possession of sense organs. What they cannot do is utilize conceptual reason which makes use of abstract universals and thinking in the form of pure functions. These processes cannot be corporeal because all matter is particulate yet universals and concepts are by nature general and hence non-particulate.

As to the mineral comment, unless minerals are capable of immanent causation they would not be considered to be living.

I can understand that sentient beings, animals have sense memory and sense knowledge, this is quite different from intellectual knowledge. They are born with a certain programing that is designed for their well-being, physical life, and as human experience testifies that they can be programed to do different things, even to counter their own instincts temporarily Their complete nature is derived from material not spiritual.substance
The word itself consciousness is derived from con,-meaning with, and scire-meaning to know. I can see how an animal can be sensitive to what it is exposed to, but I do not see where it is conscious, aware in the intellectual sense, this would be impossible for it is a spiritual action. I believe because an animal is programed to do what apears to be the result of reasoning that people begin to think that the animal is responsible for its acts. I have never read where St.Thomas stated that animals have self-awareness, although he stated to the best of my knowledge that animals do have sense memory, and sense knowledge but not intellectual knowledge. Evolutionists keep looking for a link between animals and humans because they see similarities in some of their actions and they fail to make the distinction between sense knowledge, and intellectual knowledge. I see what appears to be reasoning, or intelligence on the part of the animal is due to it’s Creator who programed it to do what it does. Animals are born to behave in special way, they do not have to learn they do things instinctively. A duckling prunes feathers that are not even developed, other animals suckle at birth etc, etc. If there is an awareness,it isn,t intellectual, but sensed.

 

[balto]

I can understand that sentient beings, animals have sense memory and sense knowledge, this is quite different from intellectual knowledge. They are born with a certain programing that is designed for their well-being, physical life, and as human experience testifies that they can be programed to do different things, even to counter their own instincts temporarily Their complete nature is derived from material not spiritual.substance
The word itself consciousness is derived from con,-meaning with, and scire-meaning to know. I can see how an animal can be sensitive to what it is exposed to, but I do not see where it is conscious, aware in the intellectual sense, this would be impossible for it is a spiritual action. I believe because an animal is programed to do what apears to be the result of reasoning that people begin to think that the animal is responsible for its acts. I have never read where St.Thomas stated that animals have self-awareness, although he stated to the best of my knowledge that animals do have sense memory, and sense knowledge but not intellectual knowledge. Evolutionists keep looking for a link between animals and humans because they see similarities in some of their actions and they fail to make the distinction between sense knowledge, and intellectual knowledge. I see what appears to be reasoning, or intelligence on the part of the animal is due to it’s Creator who programed it to do what it does. Animals are born to behave in special way, they do not have to learn they do things instinctively. A duckling prunes feathers that are not even developed, other animals suckle at birth etc, etc. If there is an awareness,it isn,t intellectual, but sensed.

I think that we are mostly in agreement here. But I would take consciousness to include both sensual and intellectual awareness since at a minimum a creature would need access to sensation to be able to know anything even in the primitive understanding of the word “know.” But yeah, intellectual awareness sets us above the brutes (and specifically the intellect only and not imagination, which animals also have). But I think it is incorrect to regard animals as “machines” because they do possess qualia. If you step on the paw of your dog and he yelps, he is actually experiencing the feeling of pain. It is only analogous to what a human experiences because there’s no rational understanding of “I am in pain” in an animal, but it is also not like a computer which can be programmed to act as if it were in pain but is not actually experiencing anything.

 

[ynotzap]

I do refer to animals as sophisticated biological computers trying to reach a compromise knowing that they don’t have rationality, but at the same time they do what we recognize as intelligent things. Since they are not responsible for the way they act, but are programed to act the way they do. I wonder if sense knowledge would by considered sense data stored in the memory of the animal. Sense impressions stored in the brain. It has been shown that whole concerts can be heard or recalled when electrodes are placed in the brain. Also animals can be programed to do certain things, and food is usually the incentive’ like Pavlov’s experiment with a dog. There are also behaviors that are referred to as instinct. These are some of the reasons that I think sensitivity when speaking of animal behavior is possibly referred to as animal awareness. Certain stimuli brings about certain reaction and is stored in the sense memory bank, the brain . I remember a man who watered his garden, on the other side of the fence some dogs where barking. He watered them with the hose, but prior to dosing them with water he coughed. Now all he has to do to make them stop barking is to cough.

If this distinction between sense awareness, and intellectual awareness where properly understood, then material evolutionists might see the light, instead of looking for the “lost or missing link” between animals and humans. You use the term qualia, I’m not familiar with the term- does it have reference to quality? Although I see one of the qualities if I may use the word, of a material soul,is its ability to maintain the intelligent order already established in the nature of the animal

 

[billcu1]

I don’t think that idea has any foundation in Catholic teaching.

I don’t know, perhaps not. But remember when I opened this thread I invited many to comment on knowledge. Not just Catholic doctrine which is of course welcome. pre-christian, Eastern, western, modern. Philosophy of many types people may have experience with.

 

[billcu1]

Yes. Catholic philosophy would put it this way: animals have material souls; humans have spiritual souls.

As to uselessness. All living beings have a soul which animates them, even amoebas and bacteria. Except for humans, those souls are material. It is not a matter of utility. All of creation has utility.

Maybe so perhaps now. But after man has go onto whatever the plan is. Animals will have to do something else. It seems like Catholic doctrine is dealing with finite periods. Animals may be for man, but when man no longer needs them. Surely we will be greater and they may have an intellectual soul and be like we are at present. Notice I don’t mean “human”. But spiritually on our current level And we will be their teachers as Angels now are to us. Anyone come across a belief like this? Remember not just necessarily Catholic.

 

[ynotzap]

This sounds like the belief of Reincarnation where animals will come back as someone or something else, or some person will come back as another person. O f course this is contrary to Christian belief and understanding. Animal do not have spiritual souls, so they experience material deterioration, corruption. This belief is found in Hinduism where a person returns, the soul is in another person.

 

[billcu1]

This sounds like the belief of Reincarnation where animals will come back as someone or something else, or some person will come back as another person. O f course this is contrary to Christian belief and understanding. Animal do not have spiritual souls, so they experience material deterioration, corruption. This belief is found in Hinduism where a person returns, the soul is in another person.

I don’t know that reincarnation is completely contrary to at least all Christian belief but certainly the Catholic church. I’m not specifically claiming that an animal’s individual soul (if there is one) reincarnates. Looking at Kabbalistic beliefs, I don’t know about our (Catholic) mystagogy but in Judaism we are in a sense part of one soul that shattered. Adam sometimes mentioned in the Bible is a “soul”. We are Adam (man). I think it is very possible that and this is taught in some beliefs that animals are a “group soul”. Kind of not so much individual as we are. And we are a “group soul” too in some ways. The “fall of man” included the shattering of “the potter’s vessel”. And Kabbala does also teach reincarnation. Judaism mainstream anyway doesn’t teach reincarnation that I’m aware of.