N
NeedsMercy
Guest
ynotzap, could you be confusing the word *conscience *
with the words *conscious *(adj) or *consciousness *?
- Status
with the words *conscious *(adj) or *consciousness *?
Y
ynotzap
Guest
I don’t have the advantage of using the computer as you have, so it is difficult for me to follow everything you stated.
I t is implicitly understood in the Church teaching that the soul is a spiritual entity, and this is explained by many Theologians, the Fathers of the Church. It is also explained metaphysically by St.Thomas, and St.Augustine, also Teachers. It is also a matter of revelation. To follow this belief and train of thought, it is logical that a spiritual substance can not evolve from a material substance. In the creation of man there was a clear distinction made;He formed man from the earth and breadth into Him, soul made to His image and likeness. This teaching is doctrine. And even if the Church didn’t explain it explicitly as doctrine it certainly was implicitly understood.
I can understand how by adaption how physical changes take place, but as long as it is physical it remains physical, at the time a spiritual soul is infused it then becomes homo sapien, body and soul, and no longer non-human. And it counters the understanding that the creation of man was a complete and direct act.
I refer to the use of the word empiricism which is using experimental methods in the search for knowledge by observation and experiment, disregarding the scientific method and relying solely on experience. In Philosophy the theory that sense experience is the only source of knowledge. These scientists never transcend to the spiritual. they are earth bound. I am not opposed in any way to knowledge gained by the scientific method
but I don’t buy everything they say is true. When learning in our system of education, we are considered learned if we can parrot what our teachers tell us and pass our grades
But I remember the words of a wise philosopher who stated. "What good does it do me to digest a meal my teacher has eaten, I have to digest it for myself. " I am afraid some of us have accepted things because some have represented authority and therefore it must be true. I realize this can work both ways, but I also realize that when I accept what the Church teaches and believes, I have it on the best authority, God.
I t is implicitly understood in the Church teaching that the soul is a spiritual entity, and this is explained by many Theologians, the Fathers of the Church. It is also explained metaphysically by St.Thomas, and St.Augustine, also Teachers. It is also a matter of revelation. To follow this belief and train of thought, it is logical that a spiritual substance can not evolve from a material substance. In the creation of man there was a clear distinction made;He formed man from the earth and breadth into Him, soul made to His image and likeness. This teaching is doctrine. And even if the Church didn’t explain it explicitly as doctrine it certainly was implicitly understood.
I can understand how by adaption how physical changes take place, but as long as it is physical it remains physical, at the time a spiritual soul is infused it then becomes homo sapien, body and soul, and no longer non-human. And it counters the understanding that the creation of man was a complete and direct act.
I refer to the use of the word empiricism which is using experimental methods in the search for knowledge by observation and experiment, disregarding the scientific method and relying solely on experience. In Philosophy the theory that sense experience is the only source of knowledge. These scientists never transcend to the spiritual. they are earth bound. I am not opposed in any way to knowledge gained by the scientific method
but I don’t buy everything they say is true. When learning in our system of education, we are considered learned if we can parrot what our teachers tell us and pass our grades
But I remember the words of a wise philosopher who stated. "What good does it do me to digest a meal my teacher has eaten, I have to digest it for myself. " I am afraid some of us have accepted things because some have represented authority and therefore it must be true. I realize this can work both ways, but I also realize that when I accept what the Church teaches and believes, I have it on the best authority, God.
Y
ynotzap
Guest
Conscience is an informed intellect, or mind with the knowledge of right and wrong, the moral law and how we apply it to our actions
Consciousness is the act of being aware, an act of knowing, I can be aware of myself and it implies to being receptive mentally to the world around you
Consciousness is the act of being aware, an act of knowing, I can be aware of myself and it implies to being receptive mentally to the world around you
Y
ynotzap
Guest
It would be better said if I stated that conscious is the act of being aware Consciousness is the state of being aware.
N
NeedsMercy
Guest
I’m okay with using Aquinas’ definition, for this particular discussion.
F
feltmeanings23
Guest
She wants it to stop; there is a desire for it to stop, but not a felt desire to stop. She computes and acts a certain way based on events in and around her, whereas humans perceive and react in certain ways.
Euthanize, if you wish.
Yeah, the confusion probably comes with the word “experience.” If you define it loosely to mean a biological entity going through something (an emotion), then sure, animals experience. I would put out my categories like this: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.
Awareness - plants, animals, humans, angels, God (scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz/)
Consciousness - animals, humans, angels, God*
Sentience (i.e. self-awareness, self-consciousness) - humans, angels, God (spiritual beings)
It seems like my distinctions are in line with both science and theology, since science does proclaim animals to be conscious. Plants are aware, but clearly this doesn’t mean they have any consciousness. Only spiritual beings have subjectivity, or true, temporal consciousness (moment to moment). The consciousness of mere animals is strictly material–no qualia, no felt sensations, no felt experiences…just brain-goings on, electrical activity, complex reactions. Is this easier, or did I make it even more confusing?
*Some animals, such as dolphins, have what I would call “reflective awareness” in which they appear to recognize the outline of their own figure (the mirror test), but this does not prove they truly have perception or true self-awareness. It’s just brain goings-on that are more complex than those of other animals that can’t recognize their own reflection.
Animals have pain…they undergo pain…they experience pain (using a loose definition of “experience”)…but they do not perceive pain…they don’t feel pain (it would take a subjectivity (a spirit/soul)). Or more simply: Animals have pain, but they don’t have felt pain.
B
billcu1
Guest
Temporal consciousness is not really real though. God does not see things temporal and is a spiritual being. The idea of this happening in a linear time fashion seems to be the way we “spiritual” but still flawed and in many ways still unaware see things.
How could we be totally aware when we will be like him but we do not see the past present and future happening in one eternal now. Which seems to be the way things are really perceived by God a perfect being.
F
feltmeanings23
Guest
William Lane Craig holds that God is timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to the instant of creation. Can a Catholic hold that position, or must we believe that God is always timeless?
Maybe temporal consciousness is not a useful term, for God’s consciousness (at least before creation) is atemporal.
B
billcu1
Guest
I don’t know. Good question. Has the holy father(s) or the church in anyway held up this Craig’s position?
Maybe temporal consciousness is not a useful term, for God’s consciousness (at least before creation) is atemporal.
Is this Aquinas or Aristotlean? Which seems to be the way the thread is going? We must remember too that Aquinas to my knowledge is not “official” church doctrine. So I guess it could be fallible but very educational.
N
NeedsMercy
Guest
Yeah, you **did **make it more confusing!
First, your three categories. I’ll try to keep to the philosophical definition of terms. There are different kinds of consciousness. “Self-awareness” is one type. Self-awareness includes more than the mirror test, of course, but even taking this into account, there are some animals that do have self-awareness, i.e., chimpanzees. Another type of consciousness is “phenomenal consciousness”, which is also called “sentience”. From The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
(emphasis mine)
Of course, for every philosopher that agrees with Nagel, there is one who disagrees with him. But that’s my big problem with the **inexact **sciences.
The subject of whether animals possess temporal consciousness, from what I can tell, is still a hotly debated topic in philosophy. If, as you say, only “spiritual beings” possess temporal consciousness, then you must accept the possibility of animals being spiritual beings. Frankly, since animals possess souls—something not contested by the Church—I would consider animals to be spiritual beings anyway.
I do not know if animals (not “mere” animals, please!) have “material consciousness”, so I can’t really address this. Perhaps you could give me a website with a definition of that term.
Correct me if I am wrong, but what I think you’re saying is while animals may feel pain, they may not understand the *concept *of pain. I don’t see one of my cats saying, for example, “Hey, Peaches over there has a bandage on her paw. She must be in pain.” He might, however, think “Something about Peaches is different today. She doesn’t look or smell the same as she usually does.”
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
How do you know that?
This assertion isn’t any more convincing or less ad hoc to me then when William Lane Craig first proposed it.
You apparently missed the point of my question. If other animals don’t feel pain and suffer like humans do, then would it be OK to kill them inhumanely?
Y
ynotzap
Guest
I think if we can keep consistent with the meaning of words, and certain metaphysical facts it will help, or even solve some of the apparent mysteries of animal awareness, and human awareness. Given we are intelligently, or spiritually aware through comprehension. a unique ability of humans which are result of a spiritual substance acting through its faculties of intelligence and will. We can know that we know, not a physical phenomenon but one of reflection, abstraction self-consciousness, cognition. We are dependent initially on our awareness of physical or material reality. By the abstraction of concepts from these material realities we obtain intellectual knowledge, and we can also abstract from abstractions called mathematical knowledge, and we can abstract from mathematical knowledge,called metaphysical knowledge. There are three degrees of abstraction. It is the third one that deals with ultimate causes and effect, and the nature of the material realities and spiritual realities, it deals with the universal principles found to be operative in the different fields of knowledge.
Animals are said to have souls, the principle or source of material, or physical activity in the animal that keeps the intelligent arangment and function of the animals nature living and active
We establish that the soul of the animal is not a spiritual soul, it does not show evidence of spiritual comprehension, has no spiritual concepts, powers as described above can not communicate with reason and does not show any willful acts based on reason. It can’t give what it doesn’t have then we must look to the physical for its actions. The word sentient means "to respond to the senses, or experienced by the senses.
I see where the use of the word emotion was applied to animals. Emotions are a special reaction found in humans precisely because of their unique nature. eg. When one apprehends a life threatening situation, the emotion of fear kicks in with all of its physical reactions, adrenalyn, heart rate, breathing etc The emotion has two parts, and is never separated in a human. Part (a) comprehension, first , the Part (b) feelings
Comprehension is unique to humans because of their spiritual soul with its spiritual faculties, this is not possible to animals but feeling are. So we can’t attribute emotions to animals, but we can understand their feelings, and they are primarily sentient beings. So to be consistent in our understanding of their behavior we must concentrate on their feelings, and eliminate comprehension.
A good example of this truth is captured by a Bat who uses radar to capture a bug for its food. Human beings with their spiritual rational intelligence can copy the same principle physical behavior and I emphasize physical to make the distinction between it and spiritual. this physical reality is what made it possible to down a Malaysian aircraft using a radar guided missile in our recent News. One could say the missile had sensory detection powers, and in a real sense it had, by the study of the Bat, by the use of eletronics and understanding radio waves,and how they reflect, we can duplicate the powers of a Bat. But can we say the missle or the Bat comprehended what they were doing, the answer is obvious. The complex nervous system, its electrical activity,and the chemical activity, the programing found in the DNA combined can produce an animal that appear to comprehend. The senses are more acute in an animal because they need to be for its survival It is also noted that humans can develop acute senses too, for eg. blind people, if their life is more dependent on one sense, because of the loss of another. This is why I like to think of animals as sophisticated biological computers, they are programed to do what they are supposed to do. Their awarenes has to be physical or material based, not spiritual We tend to humanize animals, and animalize humans because we can act like animals when we don’t control our feelings, an animal has no such choice, no free will, or rational intelligence.
Animals are said to have souls, the principle or source of material, or physical activity in the animal that keeps the intelligent arangment and function of the animals nature living and active
We establish that the soul of the animal is not a spiritual soul, it does not show evidence of spiritual comprehension, has no spiritual concepts, powers as described above can not communicate with reason and does not show any willful acts based on reason. It can’t give what it doesn’t have then we must look to the physical for its actions. The word sentient means "to respond to the senses, or experienced by the senses.
I see where the use of the word emotion was applied to animals. Emotions are a special reaction found in humans precisely because of their unique nature. eg. When one apprehends a life threatening situation, the emotion of fear kicks in with all of its physical reactions, adrenalyn, heart rate, breathing etc The emotion has two parts, and is never separated in a human. Part (a) comprehension, first , the Part (b) feelings
Comprehension is unique to humans because of their spiritual soul with its spiritual faculties, this is not possible to animals but feeling are. So we can’t attribute emotions to animals, but we can understand their feelings, and they are primarily sentient beings. So to be consistent in our understanding of their behavior we must concentrate on their feelings, and eliminate comprehension.
A good example of this truth is captured by a Bat who uses radar to capture a bug for its food. Human beings with their spiritual rational intelligence can copy the same principle physical behavior and I emphasize physical to make the distinction between it and spiritual. this physical reality is what made it possible to down a Malaysian aircraft using a radar guided missile in our recent News. One could say the missile had sensory detection powers, and in a real sense it had, by the study of the Bat, by the use of eletronics and understanding radio waves,and how they reflect, we can duplicate the powers of a Bat. But can we say the missle or the Bat comprehended what they were doing, the answer is obvious. The complex nervous system, its electrical activity,and the chemical activity, the programing found in the DNA combined can produce an animal that appear to comprehend. The senses are more acute in an animal because they need to be for its survival It is also noted that humans can develop acute senses too, for eg. blind people, if their life is more dependent on one sense, because of the loss of another. This is why I like to think of animals as sophisticated biological computers, they are programed to do what they are supposed to do. Their awarenes has to be physical or material based, not spiritual We tend to humanize animals, and animalize humans because we can act like animals when we don’t control our feelings, an animal has no such choice, no free will, or rational intelligence.
Y
ynotzap
Guest
The thought occurred to me, sense experience integrated with sense memory contained in the animals brain, the center of the nervous system as well as a possibility of reflex action where one does not have to think such as touching a hot stove. All of this is possible without comprehension or spiritual activity on the part of the animal. It is humane to put an animal out of its pain if no cure is in sight. I see in some cases that more attention is given to animals, than humans, that is really inhumane Appreciation of life in all of its forms and complexities is a beautiful thing, the touch of the Master Gross but true, did you ever see a chicken run around with its head chopped off? I have seen an animal do this.
I also saw this in a human who was already dead but still breathing and I asked the nurse why who said it was a reflex action. Eventually the breathing slowed down and stopped.
I also saw this in a human who was already dead but still breathing and I asked the nurse why who said it was a reflex action. Eventually the breathing slowed down and stopped.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
For an example of non-human animal tool use (one activity that was once thought to be exclusive to humans) see this article on New Caladonian Crows. From the article:
B
Bahman
Guest
What sin animal did?
B
billcu1
Guest
Since you’re not Catholic this might make some sense to you. The book of Genesis is largely allegory and what is said is true but on another level. Adam leaving the Garden. That is all of us. Judaism speaks of the “previous creation.” As does other spiritual teachings. Before our “animals” were animals they were even more dormant forms of life. At a time we were at the level spiritually of the animals now. But we’re all of the earth lifewave. Those who couldn’t keep up with the spirits of the sun. “Angels” are a good example, were thrown off. The “evil” spirits are part of the Saturn lifewave. They don’t even have bodies. But can influence us. If you exist you must’ve been non-existant and fell from that by “sin”. And are awaiting progressing to where we all was and greater. Not specifically Catholic but this is “All creation groaneth because of the fall of man.”
Hope it makes some sense. If not don’t worry too much about it.
- Status