Humans are just another form of animal

[Sixtus]

There are some who believe that human ‘free-will’ and consciousness are somehow distinct from the brain. Where is the evidence for this? What is the proof that there is a soul which is distinct from the brain and not a process emerging from it?

It can all be explained away as the product of a highly developed neo-cortex.

We probably have talents yet undiscovered because we do not know how to access them. But it is ‘all in the brain’. The mind only exists because the brain exists in a highly complex form.

Cat’s may not have a ‘human’ soul but they have a psychi which is distinctive and typical of animal life. Ask any cat owner if their cat has a psych [soul].

There is no psycho-nurological faculty that humans have, that other specie of animal does not. We are all animals, just that we are the highest, most intelligent species due to the presence of greater neo cortex, which enables higher information processing, memory and language.

It also happens that due to the presence of a greater amount of neo-cortex, conscience emerges from this greater complexity. But that does not prove that lower animals are not conscious, just that they are not capable of perceiving and assimilating the world around them in the same way that we are.

 

[Sixtus]

All animal bodies are more or less the same with the organs in more or less the same place an dapproximate size relative to the body. Even brains look identical, it is only the size which differs.

Therefore how can some argue that we are not animals or that we are somehow spirit beings when clearly we are animal?

 

[JimG]

Of course humans are just another form of animal. The classical term for it is “rational animal.”—an animal composed of both matter and spirit. We have not just a soul, but a rational soul. We are endowed not only with consciousness but self-consciousness. We are not just aware of our surroundings, but aware of ourselves being aware. We are able to convert specific sensory (name removed by moderator)ut into abstract ideas through the operation of the intellect, which is a faculty of the rational soul.

But perhaps that is wrong. If so, then what you wrote in your original post, and what I have written in reply, is not the result of any self-volition or indeed any thought. It is solely the result of chemical and physical reactions within the cerebral cortexes. But do you really think that we are both deterministic robots?

To show that human abstract thought is merely an illusion, I suppose one would have to completely demonstrate the specific biochemical reactions that resulted in me converting neural impulses from the eye into, not just words and sentences, but into thoughts capable of of abstract meaning.

That process may require a cerebral cortex, but a cerebral cortext is not a sufficient explanation.

 

[Sixtus]

To show that human abstract thought is merely an illusion, I suppose one would have to completely demonstrate the specific biochemical reactions that resulted in me converting neural impulses from the eye into, not just words and sentences, but into thoughts capable of of abstract meaning.

That process may require a cerebral cortex, but a cerebral cortext is not a sufficient explanation.

I am not for one minute suggesting we are robots, I do not believe in determinism. But I do believe we behave as a result of highly complex Behavioural principles.

I also have to admit we let cognition get in the way so that we often try solutions to problems which clearly do not work. But we keep trying them. There are numerous examples in everyday life where we as humans do that. That is clearly the product of ‘thought’. But, I still believe that ‘soul’ is the products of cerebral processing. I would like to think that I was wrong. Just that I have no evidence to believe otherwise.

I do not hold onto superstitious beliefs that cannot be proven.

but into thoughts capable of of abstract meaning.

There are loads of instances where this proves not to be the case. Illusion is a classic one, so too is eye-witness testimony, where witnesses come to believe not what they saw but what they expected to see, so ‘top-down’ processing creating the illusion that it is the product of some higher spiritual power when it is clearly just the product of cerebral complexity.

It is cerebral complexity not spirit which I believe enables us to reach out, speak to and be aware not only of ourselves but also God.

 

[KindredSoul]

Sixtus, you’re not doubting an eternal soul or the existence of a real you that can survive without your body, are you?

Think of the saints, who now exist bodiless! If what you say is true, that would not be possible. So far as I know, the Church teaches that even animals have a soul that separates them from being mere carbon based robots…I’ve heard it said that soul is not eternal (though they may be resurrected at the end of time…which I hope on their part and for love of them).

It seems rather obvious to me that humans have a soul. I assume that all humans feel and experience what I feel and experience. And I’m quite simply more than a complex reaction of chemicals. A complex reaction of chemicals and nerves is nothing but a complicated biological robot. But you and I, all humanity, and even the animals I believe, have consciousness, self awareness; that very self awareness is evidence of a true, lasting self, a soul.

In the end, others can speak for themselves…but I know I’m aware. I am not a mere bio-robot…there is something metaphysical about the very fact of my consciousness. It’s only due to faith that I believe that supernatural, metaphysical “self” will outlast my body, but common sense, the very fact that I can experience (anything, from the real to the illusory) instead of being a senseless, *aware-less *combination of survival motivated action, allows me to know that the “self” is metaphysical and supernatural in any case, that “I” am not the result of mere bio-chemical and nervous reactions.

Even if I thought death was the end (which I obviously don’t), I would still have to believe that the soul existed as more than just mental reactions as long as the body was alive. If you think hard on it, you will find comfort in realizing that true awareness is all the evidence you need for such a conclusion. That’s not to say that a lack of awareness (if possible in any human being) is proof that there is no soul in that person; in fact, the soul is impossible to disprove…but any person with any degree of awareness has no need of any other evidence that they have a soul independent of the brain. The brain, without the soul behind it, would be just another awareless machine, for thought–no matter how complex and deep–does not equal awareness.

 

[hasikelee]

Just a question to the OP: why isn’t there a monkey on this thread answering you?



Due to evolutionary differences? Well, who is say that wasn’t already determined??

 

[JimG]

I am not for one minute suggesting we are robots, I do not believe in determinism. But I do believe we behave as a result of highly complex Behavioural principles.

Well, if all our thoughts and intentions are the result of cerebral processing, then I do not see how you can escape determinism.

Matter and energy are not self-determining entities, and no combination of matter or energy in the workings of biochemistry can produce that which it does not possess. Matter of itself has no ability to self-direct or choose. It works according to deterministic principles. That’s why science is able to make predictions. So if we are only matter, and yet we perceive ourselves to be self-directing and self-determining, if we seem to be directing our own thoughts, and to be producing abstractions from mere sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, then that experience must be illusion.

If we are only matter, and guided by principles of the cerebral cortex, those principles are potentially knowable, soluble, manageable, and predictable. Science and mathematics could be applied to human behavior, just as it is to motion and acceleration. And if that can be done, (as it can for any aspect of material reality) determinism is a given.

Matter cannot produce spirit. It cannot produce free will, nor can it produce abstract thought.

Think of the works of Thomas Aquinas, all the writings of Shakespeare, the highly abstract writings of Plato, Aristotle, the ideas of Einstein, the development of calculus, or of quantum mechanics, or even the thoughts of the various posters to this board. If humans are only matter with no spirit, all those products of human endeavor are the result of the inevitable workings of biochemistry played out in the cerebral cortex as an inevitable result of the various sensory (name removed by moderator)uts into those individuals. The individuals don’t deserve credit for thinking of them or producing them, any more than the moon deserves credit for managing to circle the earth.

Because we are both matter and spirit, I do not deny the necessity of the body for our functioning. The brain is certainly necessary for our proper functioning. (And because our sensory (name removed by moderator)ut is material, matter plays a large part in imagination, but not in abstraction.) Still, brain function does not explain how we can produce ideas, or thoughts, or decisions, which are essentially immaterial products of our intelligence and will.

Finally, the point made by kindred spirit: if we are only matter, we do not, we cannot, survive death. For death involves material decomposition. No more cerebral cortex, no more me.

 

[yugnok]

Thats what JP2 called an “inadequate anthropology.” Sure man is an animal but he is much more than “just another animal”.

Something Chesterton said about that was that the more you try to think of man as an animal, the less he looks like one. What he means is that man is very out of place in this world. He really seems like some sort of alien species that was dropped off here. He has to wear clothes, cook his food, live in a home. All animals have some special characteristics that make them fit for survival. Man has no physical attributes that make him strong, fast, or dangerous. But man has an unfair advantage: the gift of reason. This allows him to cheat the system and dominate animals that otherwise would make him their dinner. (Thats a paraphrase of Chesterton’s point).

I remember once watching a guy cleaning fish. Some of fish were still alive as they were being skinned. People were narrating as if the fish could think like a human. They were saying, "Why is this happening to me? This is so unfair. Oh the humanity! Please God make it stop! "

When I was hearing this (instead of feeling sorry for my dinner) I was reflecting on how absurd some people are when people try to reduce man to “just another animal.” Animals don’t philosophize. They don’t pray. They don’t have a sense of right or wrong. They don’t sin. They just do their thing. The great leap from animal to man is so great it is almost proper to say it is analogous to the difference in leaping from man to God.

 

[mlchance]

I do not hold onto superstitious beliefs that cannot be proven.

Then you ought to have no problem denying this proposition:

*[The soul and/or free will] can all be explained away as the product of a highly developed neo-cortex.
*


– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mchale]

Sixtus,

There seems little point in arguing with you point for point. The simple fact of the matter is, if you believe that humans are not more than the sum of their biological parts, then you have no business calling yourself Catholic or Christian.

The question is simple, do you believe in an immortal soul or don’t you? If you do, then it must exist independent of the bodies we now posess. Yes you can argue that our bodies will be resurrected on the last day, but realisticly the bodies we have then will bear little in common with the bodies we have now. So therefore, it would be a mistake to claim that our souls are tied to biological structures in the bodies we have now.

Scripture is quite clear in making a distinction between us and the animals. Both the creation stories in first several chapters of Genesis single out the creation of man as being a special creation. In the first story, humans are created last, and the only ones to be made in God’s image. In the second, Man is created first, then the animals to be named by the Man, and then finally Woman is created to be companion of the Man. The second story to me stresses that we are both the reason for God’s creation and the end point of it… he started and ended with us. The animals were created to fill our world, not that we were created as equals to the animals.

–
Bill

 

[2shelbys]

I am not for one minute suggesting we are robots, I do not believe in determinism. But I do believe we behave as a result of highly complex Behavioural principles.

I also have to admit we let cognition get in the way so that we often try solutions to problems which clearly do not work. But we keep trying them. There are numerous examples in everyday life where we as humans do that. That is clearly the product of ‘thought’. But, I still believe that ‘soul’ is the products of cerebral processing. I would like to think that I was wrong. Just that I have no evidence to believe otherwise.

I do not hold onto superstitious beliefs that cannot be proven.

Then you are an atheist? Your last statement above effectively rules out your having faith and therefore rules out your having any religious beliefs, Christian or otherwise. Of course, many people thinks it takes a lot more faith to be an atheist:

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0168.html

 

[Augustine22]

If you don’t believe in anything more than the material world, don’t you kind of have to be a determinist, no free will?

If it all started from material with no intelligence and all the laws determine every reaction that happens, then humans are just more of the same but more complicated don’t you think?

I had a friend in college who was big into free will but he was an atheist who believed that the matieral universe was all there was. When I ran him through the big bang and everything down to humans, I just asked him, “so where did the free will come from”? He didn’t have an answer.

But even free will isn’t really all free is it? I mean, no matter how much I want to, I’m never gonna fly like a bird. I’m never gonna be a pro baseball player.

 

[Liberian]

There are some who believe that human ‘free-will’ and consciousness are somehow distinct from the brain. Where is the evidence for this? What is the proof that there is a soul which is distinct from the brain and not a process emerging from it?

Sixtus,

The evidence comes from the presence of rational thought. If our thoughts were solely the result of indescribably complex processes in our brains, then the only relationship they would have with the outside world would be that of cause and effect–certainly nothing so abstruse as truth or falsehood. The hypothesis that consciousness is solely an “epiphenomenon” of the brain thus leads to the immediate death of rational thought.

• Liberian

 

[Ridgerunner]

Sixtus:

Please prove to me there is no possibility that a higher form of life can exist than man, as you understand him. Not even a superintelligent alien form of life. When you do that, then I think your proposition might be worth discussing seriously. Until you establish the limits of being, you really can’t challenge others to dispute them.

Your challenge does not establish the criteria for proof. Proof in what way? Scientific proof based on empirical data? Mathematical formulae? Logical argument? Anecdotal evidence? Intuitive formulations? What? Please state the parameters that are acceptable to you.

 

[Sixtus]

Matter and energy are not self-determining entities, and no combination of matter or energy in the workings of biochemistry can produce that which it does not possess. .

Whenl it reaches a specific level of complexity, the total is greater than the sum of its parts: hence consiousness.

Matter of itself has no ability to self-direct or choose.e

Tautology.

It works according to deterministic principles.

Only in simple systems.

That’s why science is able to make predictions. m

Because the scientist weighs up all the available evidence and probabilities, then makes predictions based on past observations in a similar field.

Matter cannot produce spirit. It cannot produce free will, nor can it produce abstract thought.

Tautology for the third time

Think of the works of Thomas Aquinas, all the writings of Shakespeare, the highly abstract writings of Plato, Aristotle, the ideas of Einstein, the development of calculus, or of quantum mechanics, or even the thoughts of the various posters to this board.

The works are classic of Right-hemispheral dominancy. That is scientific fact.

If humans are only matter with no spirit, all those products of human endeavor are the result of the inevitable workings of biochemistry played out in the cerebral cortex as an inevitable result of the various sensory (name removed by moderator)uts into those individuals. The individuals don’t deserve credit for thinking of them or producing them,

You are either trying to delude yourselves or you do not understand too much about the workings of the Central Nervous System. Information is processed ‘bottom-up’ where there are simplestimulus-response reactions that is: we see something then use the brain to interpret it.

Information is also processed ‘top-down’ in that we only see ‘what we expect to see’ in other words, we use stored information in memory to interpret physical phenomena. That is how a lot of advances in science are made.

The human brain is a lot more than just bio-chemistry, the degree of complexity is such that we have an emerging ‘cognition’, but even this can play tricks on us.

our sensory (name removed by moderator)ut is material, matter plays a large part in imagination, but not in abstraction.)

Abstraction is part of cognition. The proof is in the pudding: how come babies and young children are incapable of abstract thoughts [see Piaget]!

Still, brain function does not explain how we can produce ideas, or thoughts, or decisions, which are essentially immaterial products of our intelligence and will.

This is yet another repitition of an earlier statement [not a lot of spirit going on here to prevent tautologies]

Decisions are made by weighing up the balance of probablities from stored knoweldge encoded on neuronal circutry, to interpret new data [remember top down processing]. Often we get it wrong such as the great flaw and unreliability of Eye Witness Testimony as folk see what they thought happened not what ACTUALLY happened [that is what their stored knowledge told them happened which reflects limitations of their experience]. That is how 10% of the prison population are innocent because of faulty eye-witness testimony

Ideas are classic of the holistic Right Hemispheral processing.
Artists, artisans architects and writers are classic examples of Right Hemispheral processing. By contrast to Left Hemispheral processing which is more ‘step by step’ analysis.

Finally, the point made by kindred spirit: if we are only matter, we do not, we cannot, survive death. For death involves material decomposition. No more cerebral cortex, no more

That is not for me to decide but for the realm of Religion. I would like to think there is something which survives, but I suspect not, or rather, logically I cannot see how or what!

I have argued that the degree of complexity has led to the totality being greater than the sum of its parts. It is possible that there is something. I have hypothesised that Ghosts are not products of the dead but of the living, as manifestations of hightened emotional states, which I have personally witnessed. I suggest this might give a clue what survives death, not spirit as such but emotions in the same way that an electromotive force appears greater than the sum of electrically charged electrons.

Actually I am not an aethiest as has been suggested. I am a practicing Catholic, Sacristan, altar server and very active in many other areas of the Church including education. But I do not believe in teaching children [and adults superstition].

I would like to believe there is something which survives death but on the basis of my understanding of the Central Nervous System, I am yet to see evidence which supports the hypothesis that we have some sort of immaterial spirit.

In fact, I believe that because we are sin bound, death is necessary as death we know is the consequences of sin.

 

[Sixtus]

The evidence comes from the presence of rational thought. If our thoughts were solely the result of indescribably complex processes in our brains, then the only relationship they would have with the outside world would be that of cause and effect–certainly nothing so abstruse as truth or falsehood. The hypothesis that consciousness is solely an “epiphenomenon” of the brain thus leads to the immediate death of rational thought.

The bible says ‘Remember man that you are dust and unto dust you shall return’. It is also one of the antiphons from Ash Wednesday in the Catholic Church.

Thought has been observed, analysed and measured in the laboratory. Or are you telling me that what was really being measured was ‘spirit’!! That would be an insult to spirit to suggest it can be disected and analysed don’t you think?

I am a smoker. I know that it is killing me. There is a strong body of evidence to prove beyond doubt that smoking is a very harmful activity. I do not want to die, yet I chose to smoke. Why is that? It is due to hypotholamic activity involved in addition. It is not the product of a concious decision to continue smoking!

Thoughts are the measured products of the limbic system which has a complex nervous and biochemical interactions with the cerebral cortex, the encephalic element in charge of memory emotions attention and learning. Patients who have suffered head injuries which damage the hippocampus the closest part to the cerebral trunk, have displayed emotional problems, problems with concentration thinking and perceiving.

Also, by electrically stimulating the limbic system amygdale transparent septum huppocamus, reactions of anger, anxeity, excitment, sexual interest, colourful visions, deep thoughts have been observed.

If creative thinking and abstraction were the product of this imaginary spirit, then stimulating the hippocampus should make no observable difference. WOULD YOU NOT AGREE!

LET US MOVE FORWARD IN FAITH AND KNOWLEDGE BUT NOT IN SUPERSTITION. Then we may progress to finding out what is and where spirit is to be found.

 

[mchale]

Whenl it reaches a specific level of complexity, the total is greater than the sum of its parts: hence consiousness.

An unproven proposition. It has never been proved that complexity leads to consiousness. Heck, consciousness is not something can be proved. It is perfectly possible that any one of us (or even all of us) are acting as if we are conscious but in fact are not. Since consciousness is not something that can be observed objectively, there is certainly no way to reduce it to something as mundane as complexity of the brain.

Only in simple systems.

Regarding complexity and determinism: While a system maybe become too complex to accurately model, that does not mean that determinism has ceased to exist, simply our ability to predict it.

You are either trying to delude yourselves or you do not understand too much about the workings of the Central Nervous System. Information is processed ‘bottom-up’ where there are simplestimulus-response reactions that is: we see something then use the brain to interpret it.

Information is also processed ‘top-down’ in that we only see ‘what we expect to see’ in other words, we use stored information in memory to interpret physical phenomena. That is how a lot of advances in science are made.

You, I think claim an understanding of the mind that is in excess of what has been proved. We can show that certain activities in the brain accompany certain thoughts, but that is far different than showing that the brain is the cause of those thoughts. Or, even supposing the brain has a role in those thoughts (say as a function of our fallen nature) that is very different than showing that the thoughts are entirely limited by the brain.

You say the brain is the source of the consciousness, I claim that just as the eyes are a tool used by the brain to gather sensory information, that the brain is simply a tool used by the soul to connect to the material world.

The human brain is a lot more than just bio-chemistry, the degree of complexity is such that we have an emerging ‘cognition’, but even this can play tricks on us.

Again, claiming the complexity of the brain leads to cognition is not the same as proving it. Without the soul we must ultimately be reduced to exceedingly complex, but still ultimately deterministic machines.

Abstraction is part of cognition. The proof is in the pudding: how come babies and young children are incapable of abstract thoughts [see Piaget]!

Who knows indeed? It could be for a variety of reasons, perhaps lack of experience, or to protect a certain level of innocense in the soul until it is more ready to face the challenges of this world.

That is not for me to decide but for the realm of Religion. I would like to think there is something which survives, but I suspect not, or rather, logically I cannot see how or what!

Maybe you missed the fact that this is a forum dedicated to religion? Maybe you missed the fact that the Bible says that God will not make sense by the logic of the world. God exists beyond the logic of men!

I have argued that the degree of complexity has led to the totality being greater than the sum of its parts. It is possible that there is something. I have hypothesised that Ghosts are not products of the dead but of the living, as manifestations of hightened emotional states, which I have personally witnessed. I suggest this might give a clue what survives death, not spirit as such but emotions in the same way that an electromotive force appears greater than the sum of electrically charged electrons.

Again, you keep insisting that the reality of man is limited to the flesh. But in reality, these fallen bodies are merely what our souls inhabit. How could God, who has given us so much, simply allow us to be extinguished with death. Our souls cannot be limited to these bodies because these bodies are corrupt and our resurrected bodies will not be.

Actually I am not an aethiest as has been suggested. I am a practicing Catholic, Sacristan, altar server and very active in many other areas of the Church including education. But I do not believe in teaching children [and adults superstition].

How can you claim to be a Catholic but deny the teachings of the Church?

I would like to believe there is something which survives death but on the basis of my understanding of the Central Nervous System, I am yet to see evidence which supports the hypothesis that we have some sort of immaterial spirit.

In fact, I believe that because we are sin bound, death is necessary as death we know is the consequences of sin.

Your problem is that you are letting your science determine your faith, not allowing the science to enlighten it.

–
Bill

 

[Sixtus]

Abstraction is part of cognition. The proof is in the pudding: how come babies and young children are incapable of abstract thoughts [see Piaget]!

Who knows indeed? It could be for a variety of reasons,

Then let us see the research evidence to support it

Maybe you missed the fact that this is a forum dedicated to religion?

So let us abandon our primitive clinging to supersition and move forward in faith. The soul and its nature will only be discovered and the riches it contains when we learn to let go to our fears of death and inhibitions which insulate us from the truth.

We must not reject the arguements of athiests, and athiestic scientists, as has happened so much in the last 50-years, but face up to our fears with the courage that comes from faith, examine their evidence and move on.

Religion has moved on in leaps and bounds from the enlightenment of religious [particularly but not exclusively the Jesuits] who have had the courage to face upto their fears, abandon their comfortable superstitions and move upwards and forwards.

Only by discovering what the soul is not, are we ever likely to discover exactly what it is!

 

[hasikelee]

Quote:
I would like to believe there is something which survives death but on the basis of my understanding of the Central Nervous System, I am yet to see evidence which supports the hypothesis that we have some sort of immaterial spirit.

In fact, I believe that because we are sin bound, death is necessary as death we know is the consequences of sin.

Your problem is that you are letting your science determine your faith, not allowing the science to enlighten it.

–
Bill

Holy Cows! His problem isn’t science either!

Don’t muddy science!

Sixtus, you’re working so hard to deny an unprovable tangent that you are reaching into superstition yourself!

Or else, are you a superhuman that needs to train all the scientists of today and teach them the “real” truth?

It sounds like someone just took biology 101 and used it to justify their feelings on religion, most likely due to some deep-seated hatred from a past traumatic event.

 

[Nullasalus]

So let us abandon our primitive clinging to supersition and move forward in faith. The soul and its nature will only be discovered and the riches it contains when we learn to let go to our fears of death and inhibitions which insulate us from the truth.

We must not reject the arguements of athiests, and athiestic scientists, as has happened so much in the last 50-years, but face up to our fears with the courage that comes from faith, examine their evidence and move on.

I don’t disagree with these basic concepts. I do disagree with your apparent claim that the question of consciousness (not to mention the hard problem of consciousness - do a google search for it, or even check out David Chalmer’s website at consc.net) is solved.

Keep in mind that atheists, even atheist scientists, have proven themselves capable of being just as close-minded and dismissive of inconvenient scientific truth as many religious. We can accept the discoveries of science without accepting atheistic philosophy or metaphysical reasoning. There’s no need to, either for theistic or just-plain-rational purposes.