Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

No. There's nothing that exists to suggest the existence of one.

 stanman wrote:

 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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?

And various birds, especially ravens and crows.

And don't forget elephants.

Krellnus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Krellnus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Krellnus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

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.

 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... "

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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.

There is a difference between language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language
and biocommunication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocommunication_%28science%29

 Fafnir wrote:

 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.

 easysauce wrote:

 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.

Because their hands don't have the same range of movement ours do.

I find that life is too dull to allow someting like a soul to exist, and in extention an afterlife.

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.

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?)

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.

 Jimsolo wrote:

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?)

No but the presence of an afterlife requires a soul. I would expect it to be same with reincarnation.

 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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.

Not lawyers. We sell ours to the highest bidder.