Animal morality: are humans merely animals?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

lot of double talk going on here. i have no clue what not being "conditioned" to the physical body yet having manifestations in it really means to be honest. Seems like hair splitting double talk so I guess Id need some clarification.

I don't think it's "double talk", IRex, I really think it's English-as-a-second-language talk. Being around native Spanish speakers in my family, I'm aware of some words and how they are used, and so I applied some "translation" to that sentence, and I think this is what he meant:

Original:
"Autoconscience, intelligence (not only rationality), moral sense, historical sense, artistical sense, free will (I'm sorry, Lizra )... are operations that are not conditioned to materia (though they might have material manifestations in us, in our body"

How I translated it:
"awareness of self, intelligence (not only rationality), moral sense, historical sense, artistic sense, free will (lo siento, Lizra!) (oops, slipped in some Spanish! ) ... are all things that are not subject to the physical make-up of our bodies, even tho they may cause physical reactions in our bodies that can be measured on instruments. For example, when I run, if there are sensors taped to my leg, you can see and measure the electrical responses going on, BUT - it is not the electrical impulses that have caused me to run - I have chosen to run and the electrical impulses are in response to my free-will choice. IOW, my body (with some limitations, but not important ones) is subject to my soul; not the other way around. And just because we can see a relationship between what a body does and what is happening in the body does NOT prove that the soul that initiated the actions does not exist."

Is that pretty much what you meant, FM?

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't think it's "double talk", IRex, I really think it's English-as-a-second-language talk.

Possibly and I thank you all for your patience trying to understand behind the words

How I translated it:
"awareness of self, intelligence (not only rationality), moral sense, historical sense, artistic sense, free will (lo siento, Lizra!) (oops, slipped in some Spanish! ) ... are all things that are not subject to the physical make-up of our bodies, even tho they may cause physical reactions in our bodies that can be measured on instruments. For example, when I run, if there are sensors taped to my leg, you can see and measure the electrical responses going on, BUT - it is not the electrical impulses that have caused me to run - I have chosen to run and the electrical impulses are in response to my free-will choice. IOW, my body (with some limitations, but not important ones) is subject to my soul; not the other way around. And just because we can see a relationship between what a body does and what is happening in the body does NOT prove that the soul that initiated the actions does not exist."

Is that pretty much what you meant, FM?

You have a gift for words, RÃ*an , but I'd like to make some clarifications:
-"awareness of self": not only of self, but awareness of the awareness
-the next things till the example are a perfect translation
-good example , but, like all examples, limited.
-"my body is subject to my soul": I wouldn't say that. Materia + soul = body. The body that we perceive is already "informed" (I hope it is a word) by the soul. The soul is the principle of unity and of operations of ourselves.

Animals have also a body that is formed from materia and a principle of unity and operations. Something that rise that materia to the level of "self": giving it unity and a determine way to act. We can also name that something as soul.

The difference with our soul is that ours makes us able to do spiritual actions: actions that are not subject to materia like those listed above.

I know that I haven't clarified it much...

[brownjenkins]

interesting speculation FM and RÃ*an... but it is more philosophical than scientific... we can observe the physical, and the causes and effects which influence our behaviors

'the soul' can not be observed and, more likely than not, is a romantic representation of those causes and effects i spoke of that we do not understand... so we attribute them to something spiritual

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

we can observe the physical, and the causes and effects which influence our behaviors

That's also a philosofical assertion Does it takes away the validity to your theory?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

That's also a philosofical assertion Does it takes away the validity to your theory?

not really... one can always take the 'all the world's a dream' approach, in which case no discussion is valid

or one can say, 'what we can see, touch and feel is real' and draw conclusions upon this... this is the view i take in most instances

throwing 'souls' into the mix, brings it more towards the first approach... i could make an argument that animals have souls and humans do not, just as easily as one could argue the other way, because it is purely philosophical

which is not to say that it isn't an interesting discussion... but i like to try to keep science and philosophy separate whenever possible

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

not really... one can always take the 'all the world's a dream' approach, in which case no discussion is valid

or one can say, 'what we can see, touch and feel is real' and draw conclusions upon this... this is the view i take in most instances

... and I can understand it, but even though, it is a philosophical decission.

Anyway, it's interesting what you say: "see, touch, feel..." from that POV I'd had to deny that I'm a person: "I'm" just a group of atoms acting on their own, but I'd had to deny their unity, or at least consider it as a very low type of unity...

I'm not too sure that that POV may lead us to any valid discussion.

[brownjenkins]

atoms are the base level of cause and effect as we know it... though there is that annoying little quantum business

[Rían]

So is my compliment on your nobility meaningless? (since your atoms made you do it)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

interesting speculation FM and RÃ*an... but it is more philosophical than scientific... we can observe the physical, and the causes and effects which influence our behaviors

So are we to not have any opinions on anything outside of what can be observed with our eyes? If something like courage cannot be seen, does it not exist? I don't think so. Do you think your wife and kids and friends love you? Why? because you can't observe it directly, you know. You can observe it indirectly, but you can observe the soul indirectly, too.

As I said before, do we toss out Tolkien's works (or at least the most beautiful parts of it)? Or do we acknowledge that he writes about things that are seen (Orcs) AND things that are unseen (courage, love), and that BOTH are REAL things. And that Frodo did NOT act the way he did because his atoms made him do it. If that were the case, he would not be a person to be admired. What is admirable about actions that are compelled? Nothing.

'the soul' can not be observed and, more likely than not, is a romantic representation of those causes and effects i spoke of that we do not understand... so we attribute them to something spiritual

If we have indications of something that is unseen, but REAL, then I think we should try to give a name to it, and think about it. For me, I observe that there is something "inside" me (for lack of a better word), or part of me, that has the ability to CHOOSE between courses of action. (And even if my instincts or environment make me choose against what I think is right, the very fact that I think the action is wrong is very telling.) And there is something inside of me that sees, recognizes and rejoices at love and courage and nobility and beauty. And that sees, recognizes and mourns pain, death, and injustice. I can't see it in an Xray or a CAT scan. But neither can I deny its existence.

Last night, we saw the end of a documentary about a retired circus elephant trainer that takes care of old/disabled circus elephants. She has 100 acres and very nice facilities. All of us were in tears as we saw this elephant, with a terribly crooked leg from when it was broken years ago and never fixed, who had been chained up for 20 years, make its slow, fearful way to the compound, and reunite with another elephant that it knew 20 years ago, in a clean, beautiful environment where it could roam free. During the night, they almost broke down the steel bars between them because they wanted to be together. Yes, I think some animals definitely have a consciousness that is an echo, or faint copy, of the consciousness in humans. But I don't think elephants would ever watch two wildebeasts reunite in the same circumstances and weep with joy at the sense of an injustice finally righted, as we did.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

Anyway, it's interesting what you say: "see, touch, feel..." from that POV I'd had to deny that I'm a person: "I'm" just a group of atoms acting on their own, but I'd had to deny their unity, or at least consider it as a very low type of unity...

That's a good point - just like a musical piece with many parts, the whole is greater than the parts. And I agree that you have to deny your very personhood if you take the wholly naturalistic view.

But people are free to deny their personhood. After all, they have the free will to do this!

[brownjenkins]

we may very well be governed by the world around us, but seeing as we don't see the puppet strings and probably never will completely, a little 'suspended disbelief' is fine... and in fact, that might be what consciousness is all about

so thanks for the compliment (but enough already, i take criticism much better )

[brownjenkins]

on the rest...

think of life like a movie... if someone was to give you the frame by frame, scene by scene in advance... it would be pretty meaningless

but if you went with absolutely no prior knowledge (and it was a good film ), you would enjoy it... and it wouldn't matter to you that it was all 'scripted' long before you went to see it

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

on the rest...

think of life like a movie... if someone was to give you the frame by frame, scene by scene in advance... it would be pretty meaningless

but if you went with absolutely no prior knowledge (and it was a good film ), you would enjoy it... and it wouldn't matter to you that it was all 'scripted' long before you went to see it

the problem is that as you put it, there is no "you". 'Tis not a you in a nonsensical movie, that sounds terrible, of course. As Shakespeare put it:

Originally Posted by Macbeth

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

but you have surpassed it: you speak of a play without actor nor audience

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

so thanks for the compliment (but enough already, i take criticism much better )

But criticism is just as invalid, if you only act a certain way because your atoms force you to.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

think of life like a movie... if someone was to give you the frame by frame, scene by scene in advance... it would be pretty meaningless

What? Why? What does that have to do with reality?

I've read LOTR many times, and it is no less meaningful to me. I still value the love and courage shown in the many FREE WILL choices made by the characters (in a "secondary reality" sense, of course, since they're not actual people).

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

but you have surpassed it: you speak of a play without actor nor audience

well macbeth is one of the last people i'd be taking advice about life from

however, i'd say we are the actors... but yes no audience

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But criticism is just as invalid, if you only act a certain way because your atoms force you to.

you're the one personifying the atoms, not me... just because there is a pattern behind what we do does not necessarily imply a sentient being directing that pattern

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What? Why? What does that have to do with reality?

I've read LOTR many times, and it is no less meaningful to me. I still value the love and courage shown in the many FREE WILL choices made by the characters (in a "secondary reality" sense, of course, since they're not actual people).

it was an analogy of sorts

to put it another way... why am i posting here right now?

i could say that it is because i used my 'free will' and just decided a few moments ago to type some words down... of course, i'm really posting in response to you... and most likely i would not be writing this post if not for yours... at the very least i would certainly not be quoting you and one could easily argue that we would not even have gotten to this point in our conversation had eärniel not decided to split this off into a new thread... something i did not agree with at the time, and failed to appreciate her wisdom till this very moment

none-the-less, the words i type here are my own, or are they? i didn't exactly jump into entmoot a thousand-plus posts ago and start pondering reality... i think i stuck in the tolkien section for at least a hundred or so ... but interesting topics posted by others, some of the same people in this very thread in fact, brought me to express my own opinions on these deep subjects... and when i say 'my own', i mean opinions formed by the people i've met throughout my life and things i've experienced from some thirty-plus years ago to the present day

does this mean everything i've posted here is meaningless because others lead me to this point?!? (that's a rhetorical question )

while we love to speak of 'free will', everything we say and do is a result of the tremedous influences we've had throughout life, every day and every moment... we can say, 'oh, but what if the thread wasn't split?'... but the fact is, it was... and that cannot be changed (well, it could be merged... but no analogy is perfect )

we like to think that we could always have made the other choice, when in reality, you always end up making one choice or another, and once it is made, you can't go back and change it... sure, you can reconsider... but that point in time has passed

so i ask you, where is the 'free will'?

[Lief Erikson]

I hate to argue with you here brownjenkins, seeing as you're outnumbered already. I found some of your comments interesting and worth responding to, though .

not really... one can always take the 'all the world's a dream' approach, in which case no discussion is valid

or one can say, 'what we can see, touch and feel is real' and draw conclusions upon this... this is the view i take in most instances

Very sensible. Without having had any other experience, what else is there to rely on?

throwing 'souls' into the mix, brings it more towards the first approach... i could make an argument that animals have souls and humans do not, just as easily as one could argue the other way, because it is purely philosophical

We haven't experienced being any other species than humans. We can draw from our experience as humans, but we cannot know the experiences of other species because we aren't any of those species. As for ourselves, many people have spiritual experiences of various kinds. Look at the Old Testament prophesies of the Messiah if you want proof of the reality of the spiritual realm . How come no one ever does that? If you accept that the spiritual realm exists, there's a far more significant case that the soul exists.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it was an analogy of sorts

to put it another way... why am i posting here right now?

i could say that it is because i used my 'free will' and just decided a few moments ago to type some words down... of course, i'm really posting in response to you... and most likely i would not be writing this post if not for yours... at the very least i would certainly not be quoting you and one could easily argue that we would not even have gotten to this point in our conversation had eärniel not decided to split this off into a new thread... something i did not agree with at the time, and failed to appreciate her wisdom till this very moment

none-the-less, the words i type here are my own, or are they? i didn't exactly jump into entmoot a thousand-plus posts ago and start pondering reality... i think i stuck in the tolkien section for at least a hundred or so ... but interesting topics posted by others, some of the same people in this very thread in fact, brought me to express my own opinions on these deep subjects... and when i say 'my own', i mean opinions formed by the people i've met throughout my life and things i've experienced from some thirty-plus years ago to the present day

does this mean everything i've posted here is meaningless because others lead me to this point?!? (that's a rhetorical question )

while we love to speak of 'free will', everything we say and do is a result of the tremedous influences we've had throughout life, every day and every moment... we can say, 'oh, but what if the thread wasn't split?'... but the fact is, it was... and that cannot be changed (well, it could be merged... but no analogy is perfect )

we like to think that we could always have made the other choice, when in reality, you always end up making one choice or another, and once it is made, you can't go back and change it... sure, you can reconsider... but that point in time has passed

so i ask you, where is the 'free will'?

Essentially you're saying that chance, personality and outside influences determine your character, right?