Do you believe that human beings have a soul? A soul being defined as consciousness not tied to our physical body, which in some form remains even after the death of our mortal body.
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's the belief that we have a soul that is the soul. Maybe our soul is a collection of who we are in a corporeal form made by imagination. Maybe we really do have a consciousness in a body that will live on after the body's death.
I don't really think so. I was raised Catholic, but I'm not particularly religious because I believe in science, in physical proof of something. I believe in life on other worlds, that life is just something that planets do given the right circumstances - it isn't the result of (one of many potential) magical ghosts who created life and bestowed souls on us for judgment/harvesting after death, etc.
A lot of religious folks/friends of mine try to rebut with 'WELL WHAT EXISTED BEFORE THE BIG BANG MATT? YOU TELL ME WHY SCIENCE HASN'T FIGURED IT OUT YET."
My answer is typically along the lines of, humans just aren't at that level of understanding the universe yet. Eventually we will solve it, but right now we are far too primitive in mind, science, and technological capability.
Yes. Even if there is no God, I don't see how anyone can not think that there is some part of humanity, an essential essence, that isn't tied to the physical body.
OT I'd like to think so but probably not by OP's definition. I believe we have souls but my own definition isn't about immortality, personally I can't stand the thought of being forced to go somewhere and hang out with billions of other souls in some pre-determined area, or even worse, remain on this planet just without my body for all eternity and I wouldn't want to come back as a trout or something either. I haven't come across a ghost or spirit yet to confirm my will to believe in such things at any rate. I think 'soul' is more that indefinable human spirit that resides in all of us, our universal human mojo if you will, that is a cornerstone factor in determining if we're awesome or complete numpties. IMHO
This. Even the non-religious won't let the reality of 'we are no different from any other animal/plant/anything' sink in because they have to believe we exist with some explicit uniqueness which makes us valid and important.
Undecided... Since we know, scientifically that Gingers do NOT have souls, there should be research and testing conducted to determine whether or not non-gingers universally have souls, or if it's a random assortment.
I'm yet to hear any *meaningful* definition of a soul that makes sense.
It's been well documented and proven that you can alter a personality by altering the brain- either physically or chemically. Hell you only have to get drunk to realise that.
Even MORE interesting than the poll results are the comments in this thread. While the poll results are almost evenly matched, the comments are almost 100% 'no' or dismissive. (Not bagging on people for making jokes, the disparity is just interesting to me.)
Jimsolo wrote: Even MORE interesting than the poll results are the comments in this thread. While the poll results are almost evenly matched, the comments are almost 100% 'no' or dismissive. (Not bagging on people for making jokes, the disparity is just interesting to me.)
Maybe they are so vocal because they are miserable and have no hope in anything? Lack of hope tends to lead to haterism.
This. Even the non-religious won't let the reality of 'we are no different from any other animal/plant/anything' sink in because they have to believe we exist with some explicit uniqueness which makes us valid and important.
Speak for yourself
I am quite comfortable being part of an animal species which just happened to hit on language and tool use in a big way. At the end of the day we are still animals and no better or worse than any other animal.
Jimsolo wrote: Even MORE interesting than the poll results are the comments in this thread. While the poll results are almost evenly matched, the comments are almost 100% 'no' or dismissive. (Not bagging on people for making jokes, the disparity is just interesting to me.)
Maybe they are so vocal because they are miserable and have no hope in anything? Lack of hope tends to lead to haterism.
Why would someone be miserable and lack hope just because they don't follow the belief of having a soul? If anything, that's one less thing to worry about in life.
Jimsolo wrote: Yes. Even if there is no God, I don't see how anyone can not think that there is some part of humanity, an essential essence, that isn't tied to the physical body.
Agreed. I have difficulty understanding the non-presence of a soul. There just has to be... something. It is very hard to put into words. I believe every living thing has a certain inalienable essence, you could call that a sould if you want to.
I also believe humans are no mere animals. There are many similarities, but there are also too many differences for me. Humans are simply so vastly more intelligent and advanced, no animal even comes a little bit close. Humans are the only species that has technology, the only species capable of language and the only species that actually advances by other means than evolution.
Jimsolo wrote: Yes. Even if there is no God, I don't see how anyone can not think that there is some part of humanity, an essential essence, that isn't tied to the physical body.
Agreed. I have difficulty understanding the non-presence of a soul. There just has to be... something. It is very hard to put into words. I believe every living thing has a certain inalienable essence, you could call that a sould if you want to.
I also believe humans are no mere animals. There are many similarities, but there are also too many differences for me. Humans are simply so vastly more intelligent and advanced, no animal even comes a little bit close. Humans are the only species that has technology, the only species capable of language and the only species that actually advances by other means than evolution.
Jimsolo wrote: Yes. Even if there is no God, I don't see how anyone can not think that there is some part of humanity, an essential essence, that isn't tied to the physical body.
Agreed. I have difficulty understanding the non-presence of a soul. There just has to be... something. It is very hard to put into words. I believe every living thing has a certain inalienable essence, you could call that a sould if you want to.
I also believe humans are no mere animals. There are many similarities, but there are also too many differences for me. Humans are simply so vastly more intelligent and advanced, no animal even comes a little bit close. Humans are the only species that has technology, the only species capable of language and the only species that actually advances by other means than evolution.
Except for Chimps and Dolphins you mean?
Fafnir wrote:And various birds, especially ravens and crows.
Laughing Man wrote:And don't forget elephants.
Than why have I never seen them in space? Or speaking a language and writing things down? Or mining ore and making actual tools that are more advanced than a stick? No animal even comes close to doing those things.
Jimsolo wrote: Yes. Even if there is no God, I don't see how anyone can not think that there is some part of humanity, an essential essence, that isn't tied to the physical body.
Agreed. I have difficulty understanding the non-presence of a soul. There just has to be... something. It is very hard to put into words. I believe every living thing has a certain inalienable essence, you could call that a sould if you want to.
I also believe humans are no mere animals. There are many similarities, but there are also too many differences for me. Humans are simply so vastly more intelligent and advanced, no animal even comes a little bit close. Humans are the only species that has technology, the only species capable of language and the only species that actually advances by other means than evolution.
Except for Chimps and Dolphins you mean?
Fafnir wrote:And various birds, especially ravens and crows.
Laughing Man wrote:And don't forget elephants.
Than why have I never seen them in space? Or speaking a language and writing things down? Or mining ore and making actual tools that are more advanced than a stick? No animal even comes close to doing those things.
Because you apparently don't know how the world functions.
We started like that too, we didn't go from "oh this stick is usefull" to "look A-BOMBS!" in a week, it took us about 2 million years.
Pelnty of animals use tools. Primates can be taught to use sign language. Many animals can be taught to perform actions for rewards, some can be taught to delay immediate grattification to get a greater reward later.
Just because other animals are not in space doesn't mean they don't have a capacity for abstract thought, an essential component for how people managed to achieve what they have.
Jimsolo wrote: Yes. Even if there is no God, I don't see how anyone can not think that there is some part of humanity, an essential essence, that isn't tied to the physical body.
Agreed. I have difficulty understanding the non-presence of a soul. There just has to be... something. It is very hard to put into words. I believe every living thing has a certain inalienable essence, you could call that a sould if you want to. I also believe humans are no mere animals. There are many similarities, but there are also too many differences for me. Humans are simply so vastly more intelligent and advanced, no animal even comes a little bit close. Humans are the only species that has technology, the only species capable of language and the only species that actually advances by other means than evolution.
Except for Chimps and Dolphins you mean?
Fafnir wrote:And various birds, especially ravens and crows.
Laughing Man wrote:And don't forget elephants.
Than why have I never seen them in space? Or speaking a language and writing things down? Or mining ore and making actual tools that are more advanced than a stick? No animal even comes close to doing those things.
Because you apparently don't know how the world functions.
We started like that too, we didn't go from "oh this stick is usefull" to "look A-BOMBS!" in a week, it took us about 2 million years.
I know, but that does not change the point. We are the only species so far to have achieved such a level of advancement. All other species are still far, far below the level our distant ancestors had even a million years ago. Other species had the same time as well. Why did they not evolve to a more advanced state? This sets the Homo species apart from any other species
SilverMK2 wrote: Pelnty of animals use tools. Primates can be taught to use sign language. Many animals can be taught to perform actions for rewards, some can be taught to delay immediate grattification to get a greater reward later.
Just because other animals are not in space doesn't mean they don't have a capacity for abstract thought, an essential component for how people managed to achieve what they have.
Only if you consider simple sticks to be tools. And that sign language was still created by humans, the primates can't be credited for that. 'Many animals can be taught to perform actions for rewards, some can be taught to delay immediate grattification to get a greater reward later.' And they can be taught? By who? Exactly, humans. I never disputed that animals aren't capable of abstract thought, but they are not nearly on the same level with as humans are.
Sign language is a language. I'm no expert but I would imagine primates have their own languages as well.
And a tool is a tool, regardless of how primitive.
And yes, I refer to behavioural studies I happen to know about that of course were carried out by humans. I could not suggest if such things are observed in nature as it is a bit outside my area of interest but if it is observed in controlled conditions, the animals must be capable of it in nature too.
Your comments seem to be moving the goalposts each time someone replies to you.
Of course humans are significantly more advances in tool and language use than many animals - we have had tens of thousands of years to use out brains and thumbs and fingers to work at it. But did you know that our species took about 150,000 years to reach anything that even remotely approaches social maturity? Hell, there are groups of people in the world today that have barely progressed from that point.
Unit1126PLL wrote: All life on earth started from a common ancestor, and so it can be readily assumed that they've all had equal chances for development.
Thus far, humans are the only ones who developed quickly enough to achieve the astonishing feats we have accomplished.
It's not even a case of developing quickly, but more a case of developing in the "right" way.
Primates in the wild weave baskets for fishing. Octopuses build houses to live in to keep them safe from predators.
If left to their own devices, other species may have every opportunity to match or exceed our 'extraordinary' feats. We wouldn't even had been here without previous mass extinction events making room for us. It is said if another ice age or asteroid impact hits the earth and wipes out land-based animals, Cephalopod will inherit the earth as they would be the most insulated from such impacts and one of the most intelligent species.
We will be just another chapter in a future history book: "First giant lizards roamed the earth, then pink hairless primates, and then our great squid civilization! But that is because we clearly have superior design with our suction cups and tentacles and large eyes and brains... "
Only if you consider simple sticks to be tools. And that sign language was still created by humans, the primates can't be credited for that.
'Many animals can be taught to perform actions for rewards, some can be taught to delay immediate grattification to get a greater reward later.' And they can be taught? By who? Exactly, humans.
I never disputed that animals aren't capable of abstract thought, but they are not nearly on the same level with as humans are.
Simple sticks are considered simple tools. Chimps will take long, thin sticks and shove them into ant colonies to get the ants to climb up the stick and into the chimp's waiting mouth. That's the basic definition of a tool, an object that makes tasks easier. While Sign Language was created by humans, wolves, great apes, birds, dolphins and whales all have language that doesn't necessarily require vocal chords or fine motor skills. Wolves use body posture to communicate heirarchy within the pack, and the howls to communicate the strength of a pack. Birds communicate with each other through plummage and chirps, not to mention that Ravens communicate with wolves when they find recent prey. Dolphins also have names that they use while introducing themselves to dolphins of another pod. This is called a signature whistle. They use high pitch whistles to communicate with each other, and hell whales use low frequency whistles (whale songs) to communicate over vast areas of the ocean.
Just because they don't have languages in the same vein as humans doesn't mean they don't have languages.
Also, animals may very well be capable of abstract thought and we are just not advanced enough to understand their levels of abstract thought.
Iron_Captain wrote: I know, but that does not change the point. We are the only species so far to have achieved such a level of advancement. All other species are still far, far below the level our distant ancestors had even a million years ago. Other species had the same time as well. Why did they not evolve to a more advanced state? This sets the Homo species apart from any other species
The neanderthals reached that point too. And we killed the ever loving gak out of them. Other species haven't developed the way we have because they had other adaptations that allowed them to not require the same level of tool using and problem solving abilities we have. Large brains with lots of extra require a lot of energy to maintain. There's no point in a species developing fine motor control or problem solving abilities if they aren't conducive to its survival.
The answer for 'why' we are the way we are is pretty simple. We got lucky.
As for why we seem so advanced, that's only because technical knowledge is something that is constantly building up upon itself, advancing at an explosive rate. It took a long time for everything to click.
Iron_Captain wrote: I know, but that does not change the point. We are the only species so far to have achieved such a level of advancement. All other species are still far, far below the level our distant ancestors had even a million years ago. Other species had the same time as well. Why did they not evolve to a more advanced state? This sets the Homo species apart from any other species
The neanderthals reached that point too. And we killed the ever loving gak out of them. Other species haven't developed the way we have because they had other adaptations that allowed them to not require the same level of tool using and problem solving abilities we have. Large brains with lots of extra require a lot of energy to maintain. There's no point in a species developing fine motor control or problem solving abilities if they aren't conducive to its survival.
The answer for 'why' we are the way we are is pretty simple. We got lucky.
As for why we seem so advanced, that's only because technical knowledge is something that is constantly building up upon itself, advancing at an explosive rate. It took a long time for everything to click.
Neanderthals were also members of the Homo genus, and thus I would consider them human.
And the thing is not how long it took to 'click', the thing is that it did. And that the Homo are the only group of species to have made that 'click'.
nkelsch wrote: Primates in the wild weave baskets for fishing. Octopuses build houses to live in to keep them safe from predators.
If left to their own devices, other species may have every opportunity to match or exceed our 'extraordinary' feats. We wouldn't even had been here without previous mass extinction events making room for us. It is said if another ice age or asteroid impact hits the earth and wipes out land-based animals, Cephalopod will inherit the earth as they would be the most insulated from such impacts and one of the most intelligent species.
We will be just another chapter in a future history book: "First giant lizards roamed the earth, then pink hairless primates, and then our great squid civilization! But that is because we clearly have superior design with our suction cups and tentacles and large eyes and brains... "
Primates in the wild weaving baskets? That sounds pretty cool, but I have never heard of it before. Could you give me a link please?
In any case, the 'houses' that octopi build are nowhere as advanced yet as the houses that early humans made. They are just shells or empty bottles.
The 'tools' used by animals are no more than crude objects found in nature. I've yet to see an animal combine a sharpened stone with a modified stick to create an axe for example. Humans are the only species that actually 'makes' things instead of just using natural objects.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: Sign language is a language. I'm no expert but I would imagine primates have their own languages as well.
And a tool is a tool, regardless of how primitive.
And yes, I refer to behavioural studies I happen to know about that of course were carried out by humans. I could not suggest if such things are observed in nature as it is a bit outside my area of interest but if it is observed in controlled conditions, the animals must be capable of it in nature too.
Your comments seem to be moving the goalposts each time someone replies to you.
Of course humans are significantly more advances in tool and language use than many animals - we have had tens of thousands of years to use out brains and thumbs and fingers to work at it. But did you know that our species took about 150,000 years to reach anything that even remotely approaches social maturity? Hell, there are groups of people in the world today that have barely progressed from that point.
A tool is a tool, that is true. But there is a large difference between the mere sticks used by animals, and the highly sophisticated tools used by humans. Personally, I don't even consider them to be in the same category, but that is just me.
I don't know if animals would be capable of such behaviour in nature. I think they would be capable, but I don't think they would ever display that. Animals in captivity often behave radically different from animals in the wild.
How do my comments move the goalposts? My original point still stands.
And every other species has had just as much time as the humans. We are all evolved from a common ancestor after all.
Iron_Captain wrote: Humans are the only species that has technology, the only species capable of language and the only species that actually advances by other means than evolution.
except for all those animals that are capable of language, tool creation and usage, and advancing their species through non evolutionary ways?
chimps, dolphins, elephants, even the common ant all break that assertion.... many more besides.
I can teach dogs to understand human commands in human language much faster then I will get humans to understand dog commands in theirs.
Iron_Captain wrote: Humans are the only species that has technology, the only species capable of language and the only species that actually advances by other means than evolution.
except for all those animals that are capable of language, tool creation and usage, and advancing their species through non evolutionary ways?
chimps, dolphins, elephants, even the common ant all break that assertion.... many more besides.
I can teach dogs to understand human commands in human language much faster then I will get humans to understand dog commands in theirs.
1) Depends on your definition of language - as a means to discuss abstract thought and concepts such as higher-order mathematics and love, humans have the only true language. If you simply mean "the transfer of information" then bacteria have language as DNA.
2) Tool creation and usage I will grant, but doesn't mean much to me. Until they build a rifle or launch an exploration vehicle to space, I will consider them to be of inferior thought patterns.
3) The fact that you can teach dogs human commands but not humans dog commands probably has a lot to do with the complete absence of concrete commands in 'doggish'.
Certain animals use tools but only the most basic of ones, they might use a stick or a rock for a use but they do not fashion any sort of complex tool. By complex tool I refer to something that has had it's purpose modified and refined. A stick sharpened into a spear or hardened by fire, carved wood made into a bow, a rock made into a cutting blade or spear head by flaking the edges. A hide turned into clothes, shelter or carrying devices. Animals also do not use fire which along with complex tools sets man distinctly apart from all other species.
Another thing that is unique to human is the ability to pass on information beyond just the current generation, we accrue and store information in a way that animals do not. Because of writing (and video in modern day) others that are many generations removed can understand and build upon our knowledge, something that no other animal has the ability to do. Even those animals that learn to perform a specialty behavior need to be taught that skill by living ancestor, their knowledge is not multigenerational.
Mankind has no natural weapons or defenses beyond the power of their mind yet we've risen up as the most dominant life form on the planet. There's not "luck" in that, otherwise other animals that were around for millions of years before man would have had similar abilities, there is something unique in the designs of our minds and the higher thinking functions that set us apart from all other species (both present day and those that came before us). While there are other forms of intelligent animals we are very much apart from anything else that inhabits the planet alongside us.
There is a difference between intelligence that animals can exhibit and what is considered higher levels of conscious thought.
Iron_Captain wrote: Than why have I never seen them in space? Or speaking a language and writing things down? Or mining ore and making actual tools that are more advanced than a stick? No animal even comes close to doing those things.
What a ridiculous movement of the goalposts here, you asked specifically for examples of tool use, not making tools, examples of which were provided, hell its even been stated that chimps 'mine' ant hills for food. Writing things down isn't a sign of intelligence, it's a sign of incredibly fone motor skills and hands adapted for such small movements.
Closeness is relative, Doplphins can be taught basic mathematics and primates can communicate after being taught sign language.
Krellnus wrote: Writing things down isn't a sign of intelligence, it's a sign of incredibly fone motor skills and hands adapted for such small movements.
Closeness is relative, Doplphins can be taught basic mathematics and primates can communicate after being taught sign language.
Primates have the same hand motor skill functions as we do, otherwise they wouldn't be able to sign language. Yet even having shared motor skills they don't communicate through writing.
Writing systems can be devised to use a wide range of symbols which can be done without needing fine motor controls. All that is needed is an organized way or arranging symbols that can be construed as words. But it requires connecting words to abstract shapes and meanings which primates typically don't have the capacity to do. They associate hand signs with specific visual images like pictures as it's a direct mental image of what they want to communicate.
What you need for writing is a structured language at the base, not just individual select words which are taught with sign language.
I don't think there's any kind of ever-lasting soul that is distinct from the body. That isn't to say I don't think humans aren't remarkable, extraordinary things, because we are, its just that I don't need to believe in anything outside of the chemical reactions made within a human brain to explain what we are.
This debate thing in which people are trying to argue that humans must have a soul because we've demonstrated greater intelligence makes no sense. It just proves we are more intelligent, which doesn't need a soul to explain. Whales are very big, much bigger than almost all other creatures that have ever lived, but we don't need to imagine a soul in order to explain how the whale got so bid. Human intelligence is no different.
stanman wrote: Writing systems can be devised to use a wide range of symbols which can be done without needing fine motor controls. All that is needed is an organized way or arranging symbols that can be construed as words. But it requires connecting words to abstract shapes and meanings which primates typically don't have the capacity to do. They associate hand signs with specific visual images like pictures as it's a direct mental image of what they want to communicate.
What you need for writing is a structured language at the base, not just individual select words which are taught with sign language.
It took quite a long time for the concept of "zero" to appear in human understanding and yet it is a basic and essential factor of mathematics. Would you say then that at some point in human history we evolved the ability to understand zero, or simply that there was a radical shift in understanding that then spread through cultural and social groupings?
Similarly written language took a long time to develop, moving from pictoral representations, glyphs and then on to letters.
It is extremely hard to invent things for the first time but extremely easy for those ideas to spread, especially ideas which give significant advantage in survival/etc. Made more difficult by our own lack of understanding and the lack of understanding of the primates/other animals we interact with, combined with the small scale of any experimentation on this area.
1) Depends on your definition of language - as a means to discuss abstract thought and concepts such as higher-order mathematics and love, humans have the only true language. If you simply mean "the transfer of information" then bacteria have language as DNA.
2) Tool creation and usage I will grant, but doesn't mean much to me. Until they build a rifle or launch an exploration vehicle to space, I will consider them to be of inferior thought patterns.
3) The fact that you can teach dogs human commands but not humans dog commands probably has a lot to do with the complete absence of concrete commands in 'doggish'.
1) so prior to circa 3,000-4,000 BC, humans had no language because they coudnt talk about math? also, certain animals can do math and discuss abstract concepts as well as being self aware.
2) so prior to circa 1400-1500 ad when the first rifles were produced, humans were inferior thought patterns? or is it prior to circa the 1960's when we were all having these inferior thought patterns?
plenty of organisms have traveled much farther in space then we have, despite being simpler organisms.
3)thats a farcical assumption, it has far more to do with humans not bothering to listen, and humans like you making incorrect assumtions that dogs cant talk.. they quite often issue commands to other dogs, and even humans in "dogganese"
language is not restricted to quote unquote "higher" thoughts..
you may as well make the claim that dogs are blind because they cannot see colours...
or state that humans have no sense of smell because they cannot do that as well as dogs.
Iron_Captain wrote: Than why have I never seen them in space? Or speaking a language and writing things down? Or mining ore and making actual tools that are more advanced than a stick? No animal even comes close to doing those things.
What a ridiculous movement of the goalposts here, you asked specifically for examples of tool use, not making tools, examples of which were provided, hell its even been stated that chimps 'mine' ant hills for food. Writing things down isn't a sign of intelligence, it's a sign of incredibly fone motor skills and hands adapted for such small movements. Closeness is relative, Doplphins can be taught basic mathematics and primates can communicate after being taught sign language.
It is not moving the goalpost. I don't consider a simple stick to be a tool, and I never did in the first place. For me, for an object to be a tool, it needs to have been modified in a substantial way. Otherwise it is still just a mere stick. If you do consider a stick or stone to be a tool, than yes, some animals can use tools. I never disputed that. Furthermore, your notion about about language is incorrect. You do not need fine motor skills to write. You can have a writing system with very easy to make and large markings. Inventing a writing system does take a very high intelligence and is of paramount importance to the development of a species. Dolphins can do mathematics, that is known, but it still doesn't take them anywhere near human levels. Primates can learn a primitve sign language, yes, but that sign language is more a form of biocommunication rather than an actual language and it is invented by humans. Primates themselves have no language. I have yet to see a good argument for there not being a clear distinction between humans and animals.
Daemonhammer wrote: I find that life is too dull to allow someting like a soul to exist, and in extention an afterlife.
Does the presence of a soul also require the existence of an afterlife? As opposed to some kind of natural cycle? (à la some form of reincarnation?)
That is an interesting question. Even if there is a form of reincarnation, there still needs to be a place 'where souls come from', because the amount of people (and thus souls) on Earth has increased over time. It could be of course that the number of souls is unchangeable, but that the number of souls on Earth at the same time is variable. That would necessiate (new word learned ) a "afterlife" where the souls are "stored" while they wait for their turn on Earth.
Frazzled wrote: Not lawyers. We sell ours to the highest bidder.
thats right!
thats also why I know for a fact I have, at LEAST, three souls.. because three people have sold me theirs, and signed a legally binding contract to that effect.
So i either have 3, or 4, depending on how you look at it.
Iron_Captain wrote: Than why have I never seen them in space? Or speaking a language and writing things down? Or mining ore and making actual tools that are more advanced than a stick? No animal even comes close to doing those things.
What a ridiculous movement of the goalposts here, you asked specifically for examples of tool use, not making tools, examples of which were provided, hell its even been stated that chimps 'mine' ant hills for food. Writing things down isn't a sign of intelligence, it's a sign of incredibly fone motor skills and hands adapted for such small movements.
Closeness is relative, Doplphins can be taught basic mathematics and primates can communicate after being taught sign language.
It is not moving the goalpost. I don't consider a simple stick to be a tool, and I never did in the first place. For me, for an object to be a tool, it needs to have been modified in a substantial way. Otherwise it is still just a mere stick.
If you do consider a stick or stone to be a tool, than yes, some animals can use tools. I never disputed that.
Furthermore, your notion about about language is incorrect. You do not need fine motor skills to write. You can have a writing system with very easy to make and large markings. Inventing a writing system does take a very high intelligence and is of paramount importance to the development of a species.
Dolphins can do mathematics, that is known, but it still doesn't take them anywhere near human levels. Primates can learn a primitve sign language, yes, but that sign language is more a form of biocommunication rather than an actual language and it is invented by humans. Primates themselves have no language.
you are very much moving the goal posts....
if tools are only things that you have modified, then if I hand you a wrench, and you use it, you have not employed the use of a tool by your own definition, as you have not modified the wrench....
also, plenty of animals can be taught to use tools from pencils, to painbrushes, to rifles....
again, you cant just spout unproven claims like animals have no language, that have mountains of scientific evidence to contradict them.
well, you can, but you sound just as rediculous stating "primates have no language" as you would stating "the world is only 4 thousand years old, and was made by a giant taco"
if tools are only things that you have modified, then if I hand you a wrench, and you use it, you have not employed the use of a tool by your own definition, as you have not modified the wrench....
The wrench is a tool because it has been modified. Wrenches are not natural objects, you won't find them in nature (unless left there by humans). The wrench does not need to have been modified by me specifically, the wrench needs to have been modified in general.
also, plenty of animals can be taught to use tools from pencils, to painbrushes, to rifles....
Indeed that is true. I hadn't thought of that.
Very well, I concede this point. Some animal species are indeed capable of using actual tools.
Still, my original point of animals not having technology still stands. Technology is more than just the use of tools
again, you cant just spout unproven claims like animals have no language, that have mountains of scientific evidence to contradict them.
well, you can, but you sound just as rediculous stating "primates have no language" as you would stating "the world is only 4 thousand years old, and was made by a giant taco"
Again, it is important to take the definition of language into account:
noun
1 [mass noun] The method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way.
the fact that some animals can be taught to use human nouns and communicate in our language, proves they are capable of language.
the fact that we cannot recognize, nor learn their "nouns" and so on, proves they might actually be "smarter" then us in some ways,
and proves that we have a unique talent as humans for thinking we are better then everything else...
humans may have the best pattern recognition, but we also have the best "false pattern recognition" where we make up patterns that do not actually exist,
so while animals may not as easily talk about the more abstract things, (even though they are capable of it) they will also not make up signifiers that dont have referents in actual fact.
easysauce wrote: the fact that some animals can be taught to use human nouns and communicate in our language, proves they are capable of language.
the fact that we cannot recognize, nor learn their "nouns" and so on, proves they might actually be "smarter" then us in some ways,
No, we can't learn their ''nouns'', because they do not have any. I have yet to see an animal speaking English or Russian or any other human language (actually speaking, not just 'I make this sound for a reward' biocommunication), and I yet have to see evidence for animals being able to discuss abstract matters (or even animals being capable of discussing something at all). Animals use biocommunication, they very much lack the necessary intelligence and higher cognitive functions required for the use of something so extremely complex as language.
easysauce wrote: and proves that we have a unique talent as humans for thinking we are better then everything else...
I don't know about that... Humans certainly have that talent, but I have also always suspected cats of feeling themselves superior to all others
easysauce wrote: humans may have the best pattern recognition, but we also have the best "false pattern recognition" where we make up patterns that do not actually exist,
so while animals may not as easily talk about the more abstract things, (even though they are capable of it) they will also not make up signifiers that dont have referents in actual fact.
Iron_Captain wrote: No, we can't learn their ''nouns'', because they do not have any.
I recall a person researching one of the American rodents (not sure which one - looks kind of like a beaver but lives in arid areas) which can communicate size, colour and species in its "native" language, as well as other things. And those are just the sounds we have been able to determine.
Hell, we have even discovered about 3 words in the language of a species of frog.
I have yet to see an animal speaking English or Russian or any other human language (actually speaking, not just 'I make this sound for a reward' biocommunication)
Animals have very different anatomy for the most part, making direct human speech difficult. Not being involved in that kind of researcj with animals I could not comment on the limitations of teaching animals to communicate. However, communication is communication, no matter the format it takes.
and I yet have to see evidence for animals being able to discuss abstract matters (or even animals being capable of discussing something at all). Animals use biocommunication, they very much lack the necessary intelligence and higher cognitive functions required for the use of something so extremely complex as language.
I think the science is still very early days but animals do indeed communicate, which means they have language, however primitive.
How would you explain whale "song" then? Each pod of whales speak their own language, and the stuff is too complex to simply call "biocommunication"... yet, because we cant understand it, it's not "language"??
Seems more like someone sitting at the top of the food chain not wanting to admit that something else may have some of the same "skills" that he does.
the fact that we cannot recognize, nor learn their "nouns" and so on, proves they might actually be "smarter" then us in some ways,
No, we can't learn their ''nouns'', because they do not have any.
I have yet to see an animal speaking English or Russian or any other human language (actually speaking, not just 'I make this sound for a reward' biocommunication),
ummm, sounds like you dont realize that they do not have human vocal chords... and cannot make the same sounds as us...
also you are equivocating the sounds waves producable by vocal chords as a requirement for language, again, totally false, as your interpretation also means mute people do not know language, as they cannot pronounce any words in english or russian, they must substitute a different set of symbols (signifiers) for the "stuff" (referents).
because that is the claim you keep making... you claim because animals cannot pronounce the sound for the word "hello" they cannot speak language... despite them having a sound they can pronouce that means "hello"
again, does the fact that human ears cannot hear the same fequencies a dog hears, mean we humans literally CANNOT HEAR?!?!
of course not... same as how animals not being able to say "hello" in the english language, does not mean they are incapable of language... they just cant pronouce the particular symbols of the "english" language.
it in no way shape or form prevents them from using different symbols (signifiers) to represent the exact same referants in our language.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: How would you explain whale "song" then? Each pod of whales speak their own language, and the stuff is too complex to simply call "biocommunication"... yet, because we cant understand it, it's not "language"??
Seems more like someone sitting at the top of the food chain not wanting to admit that something else may have some of the same "skills" that he does.
So do whales discuss philosophy and other abstract concepts? As far as I know, whale songs are still primarily used for sexual selection. A Whale's song is more similiar to the singing of birds than to a human's language. It is still a form of biocommunication, not language. A whale's song is very complex, but biocommunication is not necessarily simple. A whale's song however, is not anywhere near as complex as the English language, let alone all those other languages. Human language is really extremely complex.
ummm, sounds like you dont realize that they do not have human vocal chords... and cannot make the same sounds as us...
also you are equivocating the sounds waves producable by vocal chords as a requirement for language, again, totally false, as your interpretation also means mute people do not know language, as they cannot pronounce any words in english or russian, they must substitute a different set of symbols (signifiers) for the "stuff" (referents).
because that is the claim you keep making... you claim because animals cannot pronounce the sound for the word "hello" they cannot speak language... despite them having a sound they can pronouce that means "hello"
again, does the fact that human ears cannot hear the same fequencies a dog hears, mean we humans literally CANNOT HEAR?!?!
of course not... same as how animals not being able to say "hello" in the english language, does not mean they are incapable of language... they just cant pronouce the particular symbols of the "english" language.
it in no way shape or form prevents them from using different symbols (signifiers) to represent the exact same referants in our language.
I never said (human) vocal chords were necessary for language. In fact, I am communicating right now using language without using vocal chords. Do you even know what 'language' means? A simple test to establish whether a system of communication is a language or not would be to determine whether it would be possible to define the meaning of 'language' using that system of communications. Are animals able to argue semantics? I think not. I suggest you start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language
Daemonhammer wrote: I find that life is too dull to allow someting like a soul to exist, and in extention an afterlife.
But maybe that is why there is an afterlife? To make up for the dulness of life? ;P
Iron_Captain wrote: I never said (human) vocal chords were necessary for language.
you claimed animals must be speaking english or russian ect before you will accept that they can communicate, using language
Iron_Captain wrote: I have yet to see an animal speaking English or Russian or any other human language (actually speaking, not just 'I make this sound for a reward' biocommunication),
so more goal post moving after you are proven wrong? sounds about right...
first its "they dont have nouns, so no language"
then when shown they do use nouns, and can even learn OUR nouns, it changes to "dogs dont speak english or russian, they dont have language"
then when shown that there are far more "languages" then the human ones, its
"you dont know anything, wikipedia has a definition here, and the first two sentences say its human language, so no other language exists!"
now, as I point out to you, that wiki is a horrible HORRIBLE reference, and still doesnt say what you think it says,
I expect the goal posts to just move to
"well, I just meant that animals have inferior language, not that they totally lacked language"
at least I would hope you make that move... as its the correct one,
animals very much have language, by the scientific definition of language, its not as good as OUR language, but it has all the requirments of language.
1) Depends on your definition of language - as a means to discuss abstract thought and concepts such as higher-order mathematics and love, humans have the only true language. If you simply mean "the transfer of information" then bacteria have language as DNA.
2) Tool creation and usage I will grant, but doesn't mean much to me. Until they build a rifle or launch an exploration vehicle to space, I will consider them to be of inferior thought patterns.
3) The fact that you can teach dogs human commands but not humans dog commands probably has a lot to do with the complete absence of concrete commands in 'doggish'.
1) so prior to circa 3,000-4,000 BC, humans had no language because they coudnt talk about math? also, certain animals can do math and discuss abstract concepts as well as being self aware.
2) so prior to circa 1400-1500 ad when the first rifles were produced, humans were inferior thought patterns? or is it prior to circa the 1960's when we were all having these inferior thought patterns? plenty of organisms have traveled much farther in space then we have, despite being simpler organisms.
3)thats a farcical assumption, it has far more to do with humans not bothering to listen, and humans like you making incorrect assumtions that dogs cant talk.. they quite often issue commands to other dogs, and even humans in "dogganese"
1) According to some definitions, no, that was not language. Also, [CITATION NEEDED] for the claims that other animals can do higher-order mathematics (like I specified in my first post - not just addition, for example) and [CITATION NEEDED] that they think abstractly. Self-awareness has been verified for some animals, but that by itself I do not consider special (precisely because animals can do it).
2) I don't really understand the questions - but yes, largely. Prior generations of humans did not have the understanding required of the physical universe to conceive of an explosive propelling a projectile out of a metal tube. Since they lacked that (relatively basic) physical understanding of the universe, they were inferior. For example, I RIGHT NOW am inferior to the humans that will come after me, because I'm sure there's something relatively simple that I'm completely clueless about. [CITATION NEEDED] about organisms that have traveled further in space - to my knowledge, that's only a theory. Also, can it be said that they're 'exploring' it? Can a single-celled bacterium 'explore' anything?
3) [CITATION NEEDED] for this entire series of claims.
language is not restricted to quote unquote "higher" thoughts..
you may as well make the claim that dogs are blind because they cannot see colours...
or state that humans have no sense of smell because they cannot do that as well as dogs.
1) According to some interpretations within linguistic philosophy it is. What do you mean when you say language? You may be devaluing the word rather than empowering animals.
2) I would not claim that they are blind, just that they are color-blind; in the same manner, I do not claim that dogs cannot communicate, merely that they do not possess language.
3) I would not claim that we do not smell, I would claim that we smell less well than dogs do.
easysauce wrote: the fact that some animals can be taught to use human nouns and communicate in our language, proves they are capable of language.
the fact that we cannot recognize, nor learn their "nouns" and so on, proves they might actually be "smarter" then us in some ways,
No, we can't learn their ''nouns'', because they do not have any.
I have yet to see an animal speaking English or Russian or any other human language (actually speaking, not just 'I make this sound for a reward' biocommunication), and I yet have to see evidence for animals being able to discuss abstract matters (or even animals being capable of discussing something at all). Animals use biocommunication, they very much lack the necessary intelligence and higher cognitive functions required for the use of something so extremely complex as language.
There's a species of monkey (forget specifically which one, it's been a while since I took a primatology course) that has a variety of calls that signify specific threats.
Similarly, Ravens are able to express abstract ideas to one another (such as the location of something after the fact).
3) I would not claim that we do not smell, I would claim that we smell less well than dogs do.
right, just as you should claim that animals utilize language as a method to convey concrete and abstract ideas, just not as well as humans do.
Why some people in this thread (not ness you) think that a monkey has to be able to talk about calculus before they are considered to be utilizing "language" is beyond me...
all they have to do is use language for abstract and concrete thoughts, not "the most difficult abstract thought known to man"...
as thats a pretty high bar for defining "language" that 95% of humans cannot meet, but those humans we dont hand waive off as not using language.
this video shows off just how proficient animals can be at using language, even one of a different species.
all they have to do is use language for abstract and concrete thoughts, not "the most difficult abstract thought known to man"...
Some of the more recent scientific research that I've seen/read up on has shown that Orca "calls" are not simply a "here I am, come feth me!" call as some here have purported.... They have calls for search and distress, as well as, in the wild they have vocal ways to train their young how to hunt/feed. They use some songs as a means of knowing where another pod is, etc.
Blue/Grey whales are also known to "talk with their hands"... as in, their body positioning in the water helps convey their message to those within visual range. Recent studies on humans have shown that upwards of 95% of how we communicate is not actually through our verbal skills, but rather our body language. By some ITT, that means we don't have language either, but rather, "biocommunication"
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I'm not a religous person but I believe there is more to a person than a bunch of molecules glued together; so yes.
By this, you're not really intending an "afterlife" sort of thing... but more something that can't quite be named, but yet differentiates someone like Data from the rest of the Enterprise Crew on TNG?
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I'm not a religous person but I believe there is more to a person than a bunch of molecules glued together; so yes.
By this, you're not really intending an "afterlife" sort of thing... but more something that can't quite be named, but yet differentiates someone like Data from the rest of the Enterprise Crew on TNG?
Yes. In fact, I think all life has some sort of underlying energy or "something" striving to organize itself. If you want to call that a soul or spirit or whatever then that's fine with me.
As for Data, you kind of threw me a curveball there. I'm not sure; I think he may be a special case. He sort of has his own version of a soul.
If you do consider a stick or stone to be a tool, than yes, some animals can use tools. I never disputed that.
A tool is any physical item that can be used to achieve a goal, especially if the item is not consumed in the process. Informally the word is also used to describe a procedure or process with a specific purpose. Tool use by humans dates back millions of years, and other animals are also known to employ simple tools.
Tools that are used in particular fields or activities may have different designations such as "instrument", "utensil", "implement", "machine", or "apparatus". The set of tools needed to achieve a goal is "equipment". The knowledge of constructing, obtaining and using tools is technology.
we don't have souls. people are welcome to believe that we do, as long as that belief doesn't cause anyone any harm. if anyone can produce peer-reviewed and replicable science to demonstrate that the human consciousness can be separated from the body i will happily change my mind.
For anyone who thinks there is a soul, please give us your definition of it and how it interacts with the meatsuit you're claiming it is connected to. And by that I mean a *useful* definition- not one the defines the soul as something so hidden and mysterious it can be dismissed as nothing more than a hunch or wishful thinking.
If you do consider a stick or stone to be a tool, than yes, some animals can use tools. I never disputed that.
A tool is any physical item that can be used to achieve a goal, especially if the item is not consumed in the process. Informally the word is also used to describe a procedure or process with a specific purpose. Tool use by humans dates back millions of years, and other animals are also known to employ simple tools.
Tools that are used in particular fields or activities may have different designations such as "instrument", "utensil", "implement", "machine", or "apparatus". The set of tools needed to achieve a goal is "equipment". The knowledge of constructing, obtaining and using tools is technology.
Kojiro wrote: For anyone who thinks there is a soul, please give us your definition of it and how it interacts with the meatsuit you're claiming it is connected to.
It is the thing that allows you to dance or play the blues well.
I don't believe that humans have souls in the classical sense. I think the brain is most likely an organic computer type system. It is easy to think of the brain as 'magic' because it is so complex, but that is just typical human laziness.
One of the things I find most interesting about religion is that the explanations are always ALWAYS lazy. Ask 'how' or 'why' about something real like the economy, the government, or even a car engine, and you'll find the explanations are incredibly involved with layer upon layer of complexity that could fill volumes. These systems are nowhere near as complex as things like physics or biology. Yet when religion answers questions on the nature of life or the universe suddenly all the complexity that you would expect is missing, replaced with dirt and magic. I think this is because religion has evolved to appeal to the masses, which is why it is so pervasive. It provides answers that can be easily grasped by children and the uneducated. Regardless of what is true, the real answers are often too complicated and difficult to be appealing.
When I see religious people argue against science I often notice this fundamental lack of understanding in the processes involved. Without any prior knowledge of life, you could look at a system like sexual reproduction and predict "this will lead to diversity". Which is what we see, yet somehow the point eludes them? Billions upon billions or organisms, billions of generations, over billions of years... And yet, these people don't understand how a million to one mutation can happen? The real question is: how can it not happen?
I'm pretty sure that if we weren't able to show how computers are made, we would be forced to endure unending philosophical debates with people claiming they are 'magic' too. To most people computers are complex enough that they might as well be magic. However, one day (apocalypse permitting) we will probably slowly replace all of our organic parts, including the parts of our brains, with superior technology. It's really just a matter of time. I think that will then lay the matter to rest once an for all.
Iron_Captain wrote: A tool is a tool, that is true. But there is a large difference between the mere sticks used by animals, and the highly sophisticated tools used by humans. Personally, I don't even consider them to be in the same category, but that is just me.
"Oh sure, if you define a criminal as someone who's committed a crime then you have a point."
Smacks, you really didn't need to start implying that religious people are either children or uneducated, and that they rely on "dirt and magic" to explain things, in order to answer the OP.
Your very first sentence would have sufficed, unless you came here with the intention of turning this thread into a religious debate that will ultimately end in suspensions, bans, and tears before bedtime.
There's a species of monkey (forget specifically which one, it's been a while since I took a primatology course) that has a variety of calls that signify specific threats.
Similarly, Ravens are able to express abstract ideas to one another (such as the location of something after the fact).
Honestly I think the majority of animals have language , the fact that humans think they don't is bizarre. Ever heard the difference of calls between animals in a nature documentary? Just because we humans can't understand the differences in pitch ect as well as the part of the spectrum we can't hear does not mean there isn't communication going on.
When there are homosexual dolphins, serial killer child murdering lionesses ect, I find it hard to believe that animals do not have language as involved as our own.
Avatar 720 wrote: Smacks, you really didn't need to start implying that religious people are either children or uneducated, and that they rely on "dirt and magic" to explain things, in order to answer the OP.
Your very first sentence would have sufficed, unless you came here with the intention of turning this thread into a religious debate that will ultimately end in suspensions, bans, and tears before bedtime.
Firstly I made no such implication. "Children and the uneducated being able to understand religious ideas" is not the same as "All religious people are children and uneducated". Saying that they are is a fallacy of composition.
Also it is my post, and I felt I needed to elaborate on the idea of the human propensity to attribute 'magic' to systems which are actually just 'complex'. If someone finds that offensive then perhaps they aught to invest their feelings in some ideas that stand up better to scrutiny? As for debate: I will be happy to accommodate anyone who wants to discuss anything I have written in a polite and open manner.
Daemonhammer wrote: I find that life is too dull to allow someting like a soul to exist, and in extention an afterlife.
Does the presence of a soul also require the existence of an afterlife? As opposed to some kind of natural cycle? (à la some form of reincarnation?)
That is an interesting question.
Even if there is a form of reincarnation, there still needs to be a place 'where souls come from', because the amount of people (and thus souls) on Earth has increased over time.
It could be of course that the number of souls is unchangeable, but that the number of souls on Earth at the same time is variable. That would necessiate (new word learned ) a "afterlife" where the souls are "stored" while they wait for their turn on Earth.
Unless the soul is just another form of life-force. The same kind of energy or force that gives any living creature the traits that we identify as personality or individuality. Is it possible that perhaps animals and humans all share a greater or lesser amount of this force, reabsorbed and then recombined in an infinite number of ways? Rather than being a distinct, individual identity, 'souls' would then be like waves. Each a distinct, identifiable thing in it's own right, but also a part of the greater whole, destined to be returned to it eventually, only to emerge again later.
Having a soul implies some level of immortality. Only God is immortal.
That's what you think... When I leave this ground known as Midgard, I will be risen up to Valhalla, where I will fight, drink, and feth... and whatever else goes on up there to my hearts content. Until the Ragnarok, and I'm called into action once more
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Well, they probably don't have "Cosmos" or "apple martinis" available in Valhalla... as those are drinks for women or fairies
Are you saying there are no drunk women in Valhalla? If heaven is just another drinking session with too many dudes, then I'm already there every weekend :/
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Well, they probably don't have "Cosmos" or "apple martinis" available in Valhalla... as those are drinks for women or fairies
Are you saying there are no drunk women in Valhalla? If heaven is just another drinking session with too many dudes, then I'm already there every weekend :/
Lol, nah... it's just that what women are there are probably the "rugby playing" variety, insofar as their drinking choices and habits (ie... the women in Valhalla prefer copious amounts of beer and whiskey)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Well, they probably don't have "Cosmos" or "apple martinis" available in Valhalla... as those are drinks for women or fairies
Are you saying there are no drunk women in Valhalla? If heaven is just another drinking session with too many dudes, then I'm already there every weekend :/
Lol, nah... it's just that what women are there are probably the "rugby playing" variety, insofar as their drinking choices and habits (ie... the women in Valhalla prefer copious amounts of beer and whiskey)
If that's the case I think the valkyries must get pretty tired of terrible pick up lines around closing time
Daemonhammer wrote: I find that life is too dull to allow someting like a soul to exist, and in extention an afterlife.
Does the presence of a soul also require the existence of an afterlife? As opposed to some kind of natural cycle? (à la some form of reincarnation?)
That is an interesting question.
Even if there is a form of reincarnation, there still needs to be a place 'where souls come from', because the amount of people (and thus souls) on Earth has increased over time.
It could be of course that the number of souls is unchangeable, but that the number of souls on Earth at the same time is variable. That would necessiate (new word learned ) a "afterlife" where the souls are "stored" while they wait for their turn on Earth.
Unless the soul is just another form of life-force. The same kind of energy or force that gives any living creature the traits that we identify as personality or individuality. Is it possible that perhaps animals and humans all share a greater or lesser amount of this force, reabsorbed and then recombined in an infinite number of ways? Rather than being a distinct, individual identity, 'souls' would then be like waves. Each a distinct, identifiable thing in it's own right, but also a part of the greater whole, destined to be returned to it eventually, only to emerge again later.
Yep, energy can not be created or destroyed.
People think of themselves as themselves and then the universe as the universe but we're part of the universe. It made us. Life is the universe trying to understand itself. And for better or worse humans may be it's most complex attempt to do so.
Daemonhammer wrote: I find that life is too dull to allow someting like a soul to exist, and in extention an afterlife.
Does the presence of a soul also require the existence of an afterlife? As opposed to some kind of natural cycle? (à la some form of reincarnation?)
That is an interesting question.
Even if there is a form of reincarnation, there still needs to be a place 'where souls come from', because the amount of people (and thus souls) on Earth has increased over time.
It could be of course that the number of souls is unchangeable, but that the number of souls on Earth at the same time is variable. That would necessiate (new word learned ) a "afterlife" where the souls are "stored" while they wait for their turn on Earth.
Unless the soul is just another form of life-force. The same kind of energy or force that gives any living creature the traits that we identify as personality or individuality. Is it possible that perhaps animals and humans all share a greater or lesser amount of this force, reabsorbed and then recombined in an infinite number of ways? Rather than being a distinct, individual identity, 'souls' would then be like waves. Each a distinct, identifiable thing in it's own right, but also a part of the greater whole, destined to be returned to it eventually, only to emerge again later.
Yep, energy can not be created or destroyed.
People think of themselves as themselves and then the universe as the universe but we're part of the universe. It made us. Life is the universe trying to understand itself. And for better or worse humans may be it's most complex attempt to do so.
A thought which still smacks of ludicruous amounts of arrogance.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: People think of themselves as themselves and then the universe as the universe but we're part of the universe. It made us. Life is the universe trying to understand itself. And for better or worse humans may be it's most complex attempt to do so.
A thought which still smacks of ludicruous amounts of arrogance.
Which is ironically what you might expect. I admit it's a stretch to believe that we are the universe's most complex intelligence, but we could well be its most narcissistic.
I think humans do have a soul. Just like how I have a heart. I don't know what it is or what it looks like, but i think it might be the electricity that gives life. The thing that makes me move, and lets all beings move. Some call it the universe, others call it friction, some call it god. I do not know because I am not a creator, My soul is my own in a vast network of other souls in a giant organism.
Daemonhammer wrote: I find that life is too dull to allow someting like a soul to exist, and in extention an afterlife.
Does the presence of a soul also require the existence of an afterlife? As opposed to some kind of natural cycle? (à la some form of reincarnation?)
That is an interesting question.
Even if there is a form of reincarnation, there still needs to be a place 'where souls come from', because the amount of people (and thus souls) on Earth has increased over time.
It could be of course that the number of souls is unchangeable, but that the number of souls on Earth at the same time is variable. That would necessiate (new word learned ) a "afterlife" where the souls are "stored" while they wait for their turn on Earth.
Unless the soul is just another form of life-force. The same kind of energy or force that gives any living creature the traits that we identify as personality or individuality. Is it possible that perhaps animals and humans all share a greater or lesser amount of this force, reabsorbed and then recombined in an infinite number of ways? Rather than being a distinct, individual identity, 'souls' would then be like waves. Each a distinct, identifiable thing in it's own right, but also a part of the greater whole, destined to be returned to it eventually, only to emerge again later.
Yep, energy can not be created or destroyed.
People think of themselves as themselves and then the universe as the universe but we're part of the universe. It made us. Life is the universe trying to understand itself. And for better or worse humans may be it's most complex attempt to do so.
A thought which still smacks of ludicruous amounts of arrogance.
We have yet to find something else that has even bothered to ask a question like "do I have a soul?"
nkelsch wrote: Primates in the wild weave baskets for fishing. Octopuses build houses to live in to keep them safe from predators.
If left to their own devices, other species may have every opportunity to match or exceed our 'extraordinary' feats. We wouldn't even had been here without previous mass extinction events making room for us. It is said if another ice age or asteroid impact hits the earth and wipes out land-based animals, Cephalopod will inherit the earth as they would be the most insulated from such impacts and one of the most intelligent species.
We will be just another chapter in a future history book: "First giant lizards roamed the earth, then pink hairless primates, and then our great squid civilization! But that is because we clearly have superior design with our suction cups and tentacles and large eyes and brains... "
My money's on dolphins. They're smarter, and we've taught them a thing or two. Or killer whales. Just as smart, but with more mass and bigger teeth
We have yet to find something else that has even bothered to ask a question like "do I have a soul?"
I'd correct that to we have yet to understand something else has bothered to ask a question like "do I have a soul". We do not know. Considering that our understanding of ourselves on a sociological level changes seemingly every decade I'm thinking that our understanding of other creatures may be flawed.
I believe nothing. I simply accept scientific facts as facts, theories as likely to be true and hypothesis as an idea. Religion, belief, faith? Doesn't come into it for me. That said, a soul would be nice, as long as it dies with my body.
What are their names?
) a "afterlife" where the souls are "stored" while they wait for their turn on Earth.
