What is spirit, and how does it interact with our physical bodies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We need your definitions here. Animals have perceptions and reflective instincts, but that’s about it.For example, there is no evidence that animals process a mind, the seat of the faculty of reason. Sounds like your anthropomorphizing here.

We were made in the imagine and likeness of God, but we were never divine. (Look up ‘divine’ in a dictionary.)
divine 1 |diˈvīn| adjective
1 of, from, or like God or a god:

I did not say they have the faculty of reason; they do have an animal soul/mind.

The trouble today is the opposite of what you say here:
. . . there is no evidence that animals process a mind, the seat of the faculty of reason. Sounds like your anthropomorphizing here.
What evidence does one need to see that animals feel and think in their own way?
Science cannot explain mind and seeks to do away with it.
Thinking that animals are biological “robots” with no feelings has led to considerable brutality towards them in the labs and slaughterhouses. Ultimately, this has affected how we see ourselves and how we treat each other.
 
We need your definitions here. Animals have perceptions and reflective instincts, but that’s about it.For example, there is no evidence that animals process a mind, the seat of the faculty of reason. Sounds like your anthropomorphizing here. I don’t mean to be overly critical here, but this is a philosophy forum.

We were made in the imagine and likeness of God, but we were never divine, nor do we have divine characteristics. We process spirit, but it too is not divine. (Look up ‘divine’ in a dictionary.)
What about animals that use tools. They use reason.
 
divine 1 |diˈvīn| adjective
1 of, from, or like God or a god:

I did not say they have the faculty of reason; they do have an animal soul/mind.

The trouble today is the opposite of what you say here:

What evidence do you need?
If you cannot explain it, and science cannot, do away with it, right? This is how I interpret your comment.
This sort of thinking that has led to considerable brutality towards animals in the labs and slaughterhouses. Ultimately, it has led to abortion.
Where are we like God or a god?

Animals do indeed have an animal soul, but not a mind per most definitions.

Mind, noun (taken from the Chamber’s dictionary:

The state of thought and feeling
Wits, right senses, sanity
Consciousness
Intellect
That which thinks, knows, feels, and wills
Inclination
Attention
Direction of the will
Soul
Personality
A thinking or directing person
Memory
Commemoration (archaic or RC)
Record, mention (obsolete)
Thought
Judgement
Opinion
Purpose (Shakespeare and Milton)


Which of these definitions are you choosing, and which are being ignored? This is why I asked for your definitions. Only in a very narrow definitional sense do animals have a mind.
 
We are created by God in His image. Except for the Eucharist, you are no further from the divine than the person sitting next to you.

I am not sure why you are posting all these qualities that we possess. They are irrelevant to the fact that animals have their own mind. They are not merely biochemical processes as you have agreed. This additional feature that makes them the special creation they are, can be called mind, psyche, soul. They do not have God’s spirit; they were not created in His image. God made us a pair because there was no suitable animal to be our companion.

I believe we are in agreement with this. Maybe not . . .
 
My fear is that we are headed on a tangent, away from the original post.
 
God is pure spirit, and He has to be infinitely different from nothingness. How is spirit qualitatively different from nothingness? If spirit has no ‘substance,’ how does it exist, and how does it influence our physical bodies? Isn’t it a “law of nature” that only physical entities can affect the physical body?
Found this in the Catholic Encyclopedia - newadvent.org/cathen/14220b.htm
Matter has generally been conceived as in one sense or another the limitation of spirit. Hence, finite spirits were thought to require a body as a principle of individuation and limitation; only God, the Infinite Spirit, was free from all admixture of matter. Thus, when we find the angels described as asomatoi or auloi, in the writings of the Fathers, this properly means only that the angels do not possess a gross, fleshly body; it does not at all imply a nature absolutely immaterial. Such Scripture expressions as “bread of angels”, “they shall shine as the angels”, as well as the apparitions of these heavenly beings, were adduced as proofs of their corporeality. So speak Sts. Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, Hilary, Origen and many other Fathers. Even in Scholastic times, the degree of immateriality that belongs to finite spirits was disputed. St. Thomas teaches the complete simplicity of all spiritual natures, but the Scotists, by means of their famous materia primo prima, introduced a real composition, which they conceived to be necessary to a created nature. As regards the functions of spirits in the world, and their active relations to the visible order of things, see GUARDIAN ANGELS and DEMONOLOGY. Scripture abounds in instances of their dealings with men, chiefly in the character of intermediaries between God and His servants. They are the heralds who announce his commands, and often too the ministers who execute His justice. They take a benevolent interest in the spiritual good of men (Luke 15:10). For these reasons, the Church permits and encourages devotion to the angels.
 
What about animals that use tools. They use reason.
No, they don’t use reason because they have no reason. They have a very highly since of instinct. There is no difference between the instinctual powers of various animals except the powers of each are governed by a different nature, which in animals is an immaterial soul but not one destined for eternal life. In billions of years there is no evidence of an animal making a mouse trap or any remotely similar mechanical device, nor of one who left a written language.

Linus2nd.
 
No, they don’t use reason because they have no reason. They have a very highly since of instinct. There is no difference between the instinctual powers of various animals except the powers of each are governed by a different nature, which in animals is an immaterial soul but not one destined for eternal life. In billions of years there is no evidence of an animal making a mouse trap or any remotely similar mechanical device, nor of one who left a written language.

Linus2nd.
You are wrong -

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals
 
No, they don’t use reason because they have no reason. They have a very highly since of instinct. There is no difference between the instinctual powers of various animals except the powers of each are governed by a different nature, which in animals is an immaterial soul but not one destined for eternal life. In billions of years there is no evidence of an animal making a mouse trap or any remotely similar mechanical device, nor of one who left a written language.

Linus2nd.
I don’t know, in neurological research “there is an emerging consensus among scientists that animals share functional parallels with humans’ conscious metacognition – that is, our ability to reflect on our own mental processes and guide and optimize them.”

sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120322131504.htm

Brain and brain functioning might have similarities but Spirit is something all together different.

So even if animals can have reason as well as instinct that says nothing about their spirits or souls.
 
The examples discussed are all acquired, instinctual activities. They do not indicate any thought process or analytical power. A dog can do the same thing, only not at that elevated level. All animals can " learn, " but it is nothing but instinctual adaptation.

Linus2nd
They are problem solving using tools. It’s not instictual.
 
They are problem solving using tools. It’s not instictual.
When you find an example of an animal designing a complicated tool like making a bow and arrow and then attacking it prey with it, then you will have something. Not until then.

Linus2nd
 
When you find an example of an animal designing a complicated tool like making a bow and arrow and then attacking it prey with it, then you will have something. Not until then.

Linus2nd
Until you have a study that disproves the afore mentioned studies, you have nothing.
 
Until you have a study that disproves the afore mentioned studies, you have nothing.
You don’t need any studies to see that if we compare animal “intelligence” to a tree or bush, human reason would be the Amazon Forest.
It is such an enormous “blip” in an imagined continuum of life on the planet, that it can only signal the creation of a new being, as different from animals as they are from a thunder storm.
This new being, man, can only come from Something far greater in every respect.
 
You don’t need any studies to see that if we compare animal “intelligence” to a tree or bush, human reason would be the Amazon Forest.
It is such an enormous “blip” in an imagined continuum of life on the planet, that it can only signal the creation of a new being, as different from animals as they are from a thunder storm.
This new being, man, can only come from Something far greater in every respect.
Isn’t there only one creator? 😉
 
One measure is the Encephalization quotient. It just has to do with relative size, but still.

Human 7.4–7.8

Bottlenose dolphin 4.14

Orca 2.57–3.3

Chimpanzee 2.2–2.5

Rhesus monkey 2.1

Elephant 1.13–2.36
 
Until you have a study that disproves the afore mentioned studies, you have nothing.
The study has nothing to disprove, it is a collection of opinions. How do you disprove opinions? Although, I think we are certainly justified in asking for much more than these studies show before we conclude that animals have the same type of reasoning intelligence as human beings. Of course enthusiasts will grab onto the sligtest indications to make the grandest concludions possible.

Linus2nd
 
The study has nothing to disprove, it is a collection of opinions. How do you disprove opinions? Although, I think we are certainly justified in asking for much more than these studies show before we conclude that animals have the same type of reasoning intelligence as human beings. Of course enthusiasts will grab onto the sligtest indications to make the grandest concludions possible.

Linus2nd
The results are data driven not opinion driven. You disprove opinions with facts. 🤷

sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130403141442.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top