Consciousness and soul

[billcu1]

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

A developing form of life some of the mystics say. Very dormant also.

 

[balto]

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

They sort of refer to quality. Qualia are basically qualitative features that sentient animals and humans experience. When you see a stop sign the experience of “seeing red” is the qualia. It’s basically “the way red looks” or “the way heat feels” or “the way a song sounds.” Humans obviously experience qualia and sentient animals are commonly held to experience them also, although they do not experience intellectual awareness as you correctly pointed out. You could program a computer to recognize certain wavelengths of light and respond a certain way, even have it display the exact color that corresponds to the wavelength, but the computer would not be “seeing color” because it does not have qualia.

 

[billcu1]

They sort of refer to quality. Qualia are basically qualitative features that sentient animals and humans experience. When you see a stop sign the experience of “seeing red” is the qualia. It’s basically “the way red looks” or “the way heat feels” or “the way a song sounds.” Humans obviously experience qualia and sentient animals are commonly held to experience them also, although they do not experience intellectual awareness as you correctly pointed out. You could program a computer to recognize certain wavelengths of light and respond a certain way, even have it display the exact color that corresponds to the wavelength, but the computer would not be “seeing color” because it does not have qualia.

A lot of what animals know can be pointed out also anatomically. When an animal doesn’t have the equipment needed for higher reasoning that man has; the cerebrum for example, there can’t be too much higher reasoning. At least not a cerebrum like man.

 

[feltmeanings23]

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.

I would say the animal is in pain, but not that he is experiencing pain. Only spiritual beings can perceive, experience, and feel. So animals don’t have qualia, because qualia implies felt sensations. To experience something entails there is a subjectivity that has the experience (an “I”). I don’t think God in His infinite goodness would allow animals to experience pain, for they go back to the ground and that’s where it stops for them. They may have pain, but they do not have what I would call “felt pain,” pain that one truly experiences.

Mere animals have sensory computation. Human animals have sensory perception. Perhaps someone with a better vocabulary set has the better words?

 

[cornbread_r2]

I would say the animal is in pain, but not that he is experiencing pain. Only spiritual beings can perceive, experience, and feel. So animals don’t have qualia, because qualia implies felt sensations. To experience something entails there is a subjectivity that has the experience (an “I”). I don’t think God in His infinite goodness would allow animals to experience pain, for they go back to the ground and that’s where it stops for them. They may have pain, but they do not have what I would call “felt pain,” pain that one truly experiences.

Mere animals have sensory computation. Human animals have sensory perception. Perhaps someone with a better vocabulary set has the better words?

When my dog’s in pain she may not be thinking “I, Sweetpea, am in pain”, but she sure as hell acts likes she wants it to stop.

If what you posit is true, then can we stop humanely putting our anipals down?

 

[NeedsMercy]

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

Well, this is news to me! I am a Catholic and I accept the scientific fact that humans are primates that evolved from lower primates. There’s DNA evidence to back this up. Where in writing is this Catholic teaching?

 

[NeedsMercy]

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.

You seem to be very well-read in the area of philosophy. This is admirable. However, there is a major problem with your opinion of consciousness: you are totally rejecting today’s science. Consciousness is not simply a philosophical construct. It a scientific reality. The general consensus among scientists today is that animals do indeed possess consciousness. In the landmark 2012 document, The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, scientists today agree that…

“The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. **Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. ** Nonhuman animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.”

Scientists concede that even birds and octopi possess consciousness. Lobsters are aware of imminent dangers. Chickens have complex societal behaviors and communication skills. One recent study showed that fruit flies–fruit flies!–actually cogitate before making decisions. With the exception of instinctual behaviors, animals do not possess “programming” from birth which tells them what to do. No, animals are not capable of rational thought, but they are constantly learning and exhibiting behaviors corresponding to that learning. If they were not, they would inevitably succumb to their environment.

I don’t think we can rely on St. Thomas Aquinas to teach us how to evaluate animal consciousness, or animal souls, in light of current science. Had he known about the Cambridge Declaration, I think Aquinas might have written things differently.

Lastly, as I mentioned in another post, the evolution of humans from lower primates is fact.

 

[NeedsMercy]

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.

I thought this part of Leviticus to be about transubstantiation, not the nature of animal souls.

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

The idea that animals have souls goes back to Aristotle. Sacred Tradition has always held that animals have souls. I think Aquinas might have wanted to divorce Church beliefs from Druidic beliefs so he pronounced that both plant and animal souls were “material” and would cease to exist at death. If the Church is basing her teaching of the nature of the animal soul upon Aquinas’ beliefs about animal intelligence, she might have to start all over again. Animals do have instincts; but additionally, they can understand, learn and think before making decisions. The Church re-evaluated his ideas about the soul prior to birth, and about the soul of the Blessed Virgin. Perhaps, in light of the current science, she should re-evaluate his ideas about animals.

And, for the record, I despise the word “brutes” used as a synonym for animals. I would never, for example, consider an elephant—an animal who mourns its dead and is capable of tears—a “brute”.

 

[NeedsMercy]

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.

“Intellect” can be defined a couple of different ways, i.e., the way Aquinas meant it—“the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, esp. with regard to abstract or academic matters”–and the real-world definition, which would be “the faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands, as distinguished from that by which one feels or wills; capacity for thinking and acquiring knowledge”. With the latter definition in mind, animals do indeed have “intellect”.

 

[NeedsMercy]

I would say the animal is in pain, but not that he is experiencing pain. Only spiritual beings can perceive, experience, and feel. So animals don’t have qualia, because qualia implies felt sensations. To experience something entails there is a subjectivity that has the experience (an “I”). I don’t think God in His infinite goodness would allow animals to experience pain, for they go back to the ground and that’s where it stops for them. They may have pain, but they do not have what I would call “felt pain,” pain that one truly experiences.

Mere animals have sensory computation. Human animals have sensory perception. Perhaps someone with a better vocabulary set has the better words?

I really would like you to explain this a little further. Maybe I’m getting hung up on definitions. To experience something means to undergo or feel it. When an animal is in pain, it is *experiencing *pain. Animals can perceive—to become aware of (something) by the use of one of the senses–their environment. This makes your statement “Only spiritual beings can perceive, experience and feel” quite problematic. Since animals can “perceive, etc.”, according to you, they must be spiritual beings. Now, that gives me a warm and fuzzy, but I think that would make some of the other posters here scream.

I’m also having difficulty trying to understand why you think animals are not experiencing pain like you or I experience pain. Pain is a result of biological functions. From Wikipedia:

Some criteria that may indicate the potential of another species to feel pain include:

1. Has a suitable nervous system and sensory receptors
2. Physiological changes to noxious stimuli
3. Displays protective motor reactions that might include reduced use of an affected area such as limping, rubbing, holding or autotomy
4. Has opioid receptors and shows reduced responses to noxious stimuli when given analgesics and local anaesthetics
5. Shows trade-offs between stimulus avoidance and other motivational requirements
6. Shows avoidance learning
7. High cognitive ability and sentience

Thus, you can see that even invertebrates have the capacity to experience pain.

Theologically speaking, animals have pain, not because of what they themselves have done, but because of man and his sinfulness. Before the original sin, there would have been no pain, no disease, no death.

 

[NeedsMercy]

When my dog’s in pain she may not be thinking “I, Sweetpea, am in pain”, but she sure as hell acts likes she wants it to stop.

 

[Bahman]

Why then animal should suffer while being innocent?

 

[ynotzap]

Well, this is news to me! I am a Catholic and I accept the scientific fact that humans are primates that evolved from lower primates. There’s DNA evidence to back this up. Where in writing is this Catholic teaching?

I am amazed at your statements this has been the traditional standing of the Catholic Church . You sound like a person who has accepted everything science teaches which is dealing not with the spiritual,.but with the material The church has always taught that the human soul is spiritual in nature,infused and directly created by God. The intellective and volitional soul is the principle of immanent activity in a human being. and not in an animal. How long have you been on this forum? I’m sure I am not the only one who has made these statements. You are a Catholic aren’t you. I can not answer some of your questions at this time, but I will gladly oblige when I’ m feeling better, and go to Mass DNA evidence is material evidence and not spiritual, and you can’t prove a spiritual entity directly by physical evidence, but you can detect spiritual presents by the effects that take place in the material world. You can not put spirit under a microscope, but you can know it by a spiritual faculty called “human intelligence” which is a spiritual faculty. I know you have a degree in biology and this may be causing you some real problems. Materialistic impiricalism has a profound effect on man’s thinking, and very misleading in some cases especially when it comes to spiritual reality. It’s amazing that scientists are still looking for the source of life through a microscope, and an osciloscope, not seeing the trees for the forest. They don’t even recognize the use of their own spiritual faculty, the mind because they can’t separate the spiritual from the material, because they don’t recognize what they don’t understand, and I mean what they don’t understand. which is a spiritual function with it accompanning extrinsic dependence on the physical because of our union of body and soul. I am still amazed at you position!

 

[ynotzap]

I tried to make the distinction between animal consciousness, and human consciousness, and I do see a real difference. Can consciousness, that of human beings be the same as animals? I don’t see how since one in from self awareness, reflective and abstract, I know that I know. which is a phenomenon not material. Since animals do not have spiritual faculties, they must derive what may be called consciousness from matter, and the only thing that seems to be the answer to me, it must be activity in the senses, and the center of the nervous system, the brain with the ability to recall sensed patterns and instinctive patterns of behavior, or sense activity or sense impressions. In any case this human awareness can never be arrived at with out spiritual activity of comprehension.

The soul is defined as a spiritual substance which together with the body constitutes man. Sound philosophical sytems have always admitted the existence, the spirituality and the immortality of the human soul, endowed with its faculties of intelligence and will, the their proper spiritual operations, and which manifest the specific nature of man. This philosophical doctrine is amply confirmed and enriched by the light of revelation and theology.

Holy scipture: The soul is created by God and directly infused into the body of Adam (Gen 2:7) In his soul man resembles God reflex His image in a particular manner (Gen: l:6) such affirmation implies the soul is not something material (Eccles l2:7) The soul is immortal (Matt.l0:28) Old testament Wisdom 2:23:3:l, 4, l0 From these texts is also proved that the soul is the formal principle of man, the vital and rational principle on account of which man is man a living animal distinct for the brutes The Council of Vienne defined that the rational soul is the immediate substantial form of the body (DB, 48l)

 

[ynotzap]

We are not allowed to speak of evolution and atheism without being banned in this forum

But I leave this question: How in the world do neurological substrates physical element
nerves and accompanying chemical generate something spiritual, consciousness. the word itself embodies mental awareness As I said before they appear to be confusing sensing
with comprehension The influence of materialistic empiricalism will never serve the whole truth because it either denies the existence of the spiritual, or just ignores it because it traps the minds of men in its limitations. Did they ever consider that these behaviors are programed into their brains to react in a certain way? After all don’t we believe God created animals,and is responsible for their natural behavior. Birds fly south when the weather gets cold, smart birds, or programmed birds? Empirical science can be such a Godless science, and when He is denied they remain in the dark.

 

[NeedsMercy]

I am amazed at your statements this has been the traditional standing of the Catholic Church

To my knowledge, the Catholic Church has never taught that man did not evolve from animals. This is **not **“the traditional standing”.

You sound like a person who has accepted everything science teaches which is dealing not with the spiritual,.but with the material

Why should one not believe that which has been proved to be true scientifically? Many great scientists were Catholics. I see no conflict at all between religion and science.

The church has always taught that the human soul is spiritual in nature,infused and directly created by God.

I didn’t disagree with this at all.

The intellective and volitional soul is the principle of immanent activity in a human being. and not in an animal.

As I mentioned in another post, an animal does possess an intellect. No, an animal does not have a free will. I’m not too familiar with immanence, so I can’t say whether your entire statement is totally true.

How long have you been on this forum? I’m sure I am not the only one who has made these statements.

I don’t really know what difference that would make. Are you saying because *x *number of people believe a thing, the thing must be true?

You are a Catholic aren’t you.

You are correct.

I can not answer some of your questions at this time, but I will gladly oblige when I’ m feeling better, and go to Mass DNA evidence is material evidence and not spiritual, and you can’t prove a spiritual entity directly by physical evidence, but you can detect spiritual presents by the effects that take place in the material world. You can not put spirit under a microscope, but you can know it by a spiritual faculty called “human intelligence” which is a spiritual faculty. I know you have a degree in biology and this may be causing you some real problems.

I’m sorry that you are not feeling well.

No, my degree is **not **causing me problems at all. I am proud of it, and the work I did to get it. If anything, I have a greater sensitivity to, and appreciation of, God’s creation. I agree that you “can’t prove a spiritual entity directly by physical evidence”, but you are denying the opposite: that you can’t explain a material phenomenon, e.g., human evolution, using spiritual reasoning. You want to use only a spiritual yardstick to measure the length and breadth of animal intelligence and consciousness, whose substrates are anatomical, physiological, chemical, etc. You could do try to do it, but any answer you got would be incomplete, at best; or wrong, at worst.

Materialistic impiricalism has a profound effect on man’s thinking, and very misleading in some cases especially when it comes to spiritual reality.

I assume you mean empiricism. No, all knowledge cannot be gleaned from sensory experience; however, all knowledge of the *material *world can only be gotten through *sensory *experience.

It’s amazing that scientists are still looking for the source of life through a microscope, and an osciloscope, not seeing the trees for the forest. They don’t even recognize the use of their own spiritual faculty, the mind because they can’t separate the spiritual from the material, because they don’t recognize what they don’t understand, and I mean what they don’t understand. which is a spiritual function with it accompanning extrinsic dependence on the physical because of our union of body and soul.

When you say “source of life” do you mean the origin of life on earth? Assuming that you are, a scientist cannot just say “God started life on earth” and then go on her merry way. A scientist’s job is to ask “How did God start life on earth?” “What did He use to start it?” These are the questions that science tries to answer. Now, it has been years since I was in college, but even then, we knew that in the primordial world, different chemicals such as nitrogen and carbon dioxide came together in the earth’s “soup”. Being exposed to energy sources like lightening caused the chemicals to combine to form new molecules like amino acids. Experiments have been done wherein researchers simulate the atmosphere of earth before life to see whether the rudiments of organic chemicals could form from just such conditions. The most famous study like this was the Miller-Urey experiments of 1953. The scientists were successful in forming amino acids in the proverbial “test tube”. After Miller’s death, the experiment samples were re-examined only to find that Miller had created many more amino acids than he had thought. Now that’s amazing!!! My point is this: when you ask a question about the *material *world, you must study the *material *world with *material *means.

I am still amazed at you position!

I’ll take that as a compliment.

 

[billcu1]

I thought this part of Leviticus to be about transubstantiation, not the nature of animal souls.

The idea that animals have souls goes back to Aristotle. Sacred Tradition has always held that animals have souls. I think Aquinas might have wanted to divorce Church beliefs from Druidic beliefs so he pronounced that both plant and animal souls were “material” and would cease to exist at death. If the Church is basing her teaching of the nature of the animal soul upon Aquinas’ beliefs about animal intelligence, she might have to start all over again. Animals do have instincts; but additionally, they can understand, learn and think before making decisions. The Church re-evaluated his ideas about the soul prior to birth, and about the soul of the Blessed Virgin. Perhaps, in light of the current science, she should re-evaluate his ideas about animals.

And, for the record, I despise the word “brutes” used as a synonym for animals. I would never, for example, consider an elephant—an animal who mourns its dead and is capable of tears—a “brute”.

Life is indeed in the blood. In alchemist terms there are 3 principals. Sulphur, salt, and mercury. They are all in the body. Alchemy is about separating them, purifying them, and recombining them to make a new creature that is greater than the old. Each of these principals represent soul, spirit, and body. The king is put to death and rises from the dead and makes all his subjects kings. He has this power because of death and resurrection. A new creature he is and his subjects too!

There are 4-5 reasons animals bite. One is they’re in pain. All they have is a mouth. They can’t pound the table with a fist, flail arms and legs. But they have a mouth and can bite. It’s not personal they are just hurting. Nor do they hold the past against you. They know only now. Man is all I know that intentionally, and from malice inflicts pain and hurt on others.
There is a well developed pons and cerebellum here too.
Anotherreason they bite (dogs for example) is fear. Dogs aren’t people. They don’t hide things to get back at you. Or leave things on the step to trip you. Or bring a mouse to please you. They are being themselves.

 

[balto]

“Intellect” can be defined a couple of different ways, i.e., the way Aquinas meant it—“the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, esp. with regard to abstract or academic matters”–and the real-world definition, which would be “the faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands, as distinguished from that by which one feels or wills; capacity for thinking and acquiring knowledge”. With the latter definition in mind, animals do indeed have “intellect”.

The way Aquinas meant it is the relevant definition though, as it is what separates us from other animals. Modernity may argue that the second definition is a type of “intellect” in order to deny any rational nature unique to man, but that probably stems from their confusion of imagination with intellect, the former animals and man possess but the latter is only possessed by man. I agree with you that animals have a way of knowing using only their senses and imagination, but it is only analogous to what humans do when they think and know.

 

[billcu1]

Why then animal should suffer while being innocent?

Who says their innocent? Who says that babies are innocent? When you come into this world you come with blood on your hands. There are so many other places you can be. That are far better than here. But you have to work to get yourself there. We are born in sin. Is this past lives? In a sense but it goes beyond that. Speaking in Catholicism, “I go to prepare a place for you”. Then you should wait after that!. That’s when it really gets good. We finally get a chance to get our of misery and into a better place to perfect ourselves even more so that we one day will “create a place” for our chosen ones.

 

[billcu1]

The way Aquinas meant it is the relevant definition though, as it is what separates us from other animals. Modernity may argue that the second definition is a type of “intellect” in order to deny any rational nature unique to man, but that probably stems from their confusion of imagination with intellect, the former animals and man possess but the latter is only possessed by man. I agree with you that animals have a way of knowing using only their senses and imagination, but it is only analogous to what humans do when they think and know.

You know there are a lot of modern philosophers that think Aristotle and such are “outdated”. I can’t make a statement on that I don’t know that much. But I heard the likes of some looking at “modern things”. I don’t know what that would be since to me everything’s remained the say in so many ways.