Of Animals and Souls

[The Angry Artist]

Fox said:

Perhaps you should argue with some tact, Zeno of Elea.

Alright, if we're gonna argue this, why are we doing so without defining our terms first? Just what is a soul? How can we argue how possesses one of it we don't know what a soul is?

I've always taken soul to be a sort of conciousness, the thing that defines us apart from a desk or a chair. Anything that we define as alive possesses a soul, even that emu example. After all, no matter how low in intelligence, animals possess some sort of sentience. It is what sets them apart from say, a robot. A robot can move and can have instinct (programed code) but a robot is completely different from the most rudimentary of animals. It can only do what others tells it to, it cannot think on its own, it cannot remember, experience, or even be self-aware. It has no capacity because we lack the ability to program in a soul.

Since humans are unable to replicate even primitave animals it stands to reason that there is something missing that we cannot duplicate. In my opinion, this something is the soul. Exactly how they work is completely unkown, but since animals do have the ability to be self-aware and experience life, they are different from robots and have a soul.

A soul is the knowledge of being self-aware and able to communicate it. All animals possess some sort of self-awareness? That requires a short-term memory and also a long-term one. Being self-aware is conclusion you could come to using both. You could say, "I am thinking, so I know I'm here." Or you might say, "Everything in my life always involves me, because I'm the one that's going through life." Those are reasoning though a short-term memory and a long-term memory. Or a combination of both. But the emu has neither -- on the subject of short-term memory the trainers at the park said that the emu never learned to recognize the trainers. The emu did the show three times a day, and every day the emu thought he found six new friends every day.

And even the goldfish, which has literally a three-/four-second memory is self-aware? I hardly believe that the goldfish has self-awareneszs but simply lacks any memory at all.

[Kiddo]

The said:

A soul is the knowledge of being self-aware and able to communicate it. All animals possess some sort of self-awareness? That requires a short-term memory and also a long-term one. Being self-aware is conclusion you could come to using both. You could say, "I am thinking, so I know I'm here." Or you might say, "Everything in my life always involves me, because I'm the one that's going through life." Those are reasoning though a short-term memory and a long-term memory. Or a combination of both. But the emu has neither -- on the subject of short-term memory the trainers at the park said that the emu never learned to recognize the trainers. The emu did the show three times a day, and every day the emu thought he found six new friends every day.

And even the goldfish, which has literally a three-/four-second memory is self-aware? I hardly believe that the goldfish has self-awareneszs but simply lacks any memory at all.

Is self-awareness even linked to memory? How does memory fit into the sense of being, the thought that "I am here right now existing"?

Self-awareness is the agknowledgement that you exist. It requires no memory because it is a continual thing, like constantly holding down the f5 key while browsing. Without self-awareness we would not be able to move, think, function, or even tap into the most base instincts of those 'memoryless' animals. I exist because I know I exist. I do not exist because I remember existing five years or five seconds ago - I exist right here right now because I am aware and concious of myself. Maybe not even concious - I am unconciously aware of my existance. It is a nessisity to life, how can something function if they are not even aware of their own life?

Unliving objects lack this ability and therefore, are souless. Animals do have this ability and thus, are not like a robot or a chair and have souls.

[Crystal]

The said:

You misunderstand my meaning. Perhaps I should have just called them plain stupid instead of putting it delicately?

I think only people have souls. But I can't prove it (as I'm not knowledgeable on the subject), so I'm looking for a good argument that I can believe or a good argument that proves the opposite.

No, I think you misunderstand my meaning.

Instead of calling other people's arguments stupid, why not put an argument for yourself? Show us fallacy-cle (I know, I can't speel. ^__^) people what it truly means to have an argument without fallacy.

Whatever fallacy is. I still don't know.

If you have no argument in the first place, why in the world are you tearing down IDL's and Erika's? If you believe only people have souls, why? It's not like you have to be knowledgable on the subject to have an opinion. Clearly you have one or you wouldn't be criticizing theirs. Please bear in mind that not everybody is so experienced as to have a brilliant debate style. Most of us are just junkies with an opinion sitting at the computer. Like me.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd prefer you to call my arguments stupid than to argue in terms that I've never heard before. My brain shuts down the minute I see something like "Fallacy" or "Argument from Ignorance". You may not have intended it that way, but it sounds so... pompous... and overbearing.... and well... I start feeling like I'm reading some musty old textbook, and I don't like textbooks. Especially musty ones. X.x They REALLY make me become stupid.

EDIT: Zeno of Elea? That was cruel, Kiddo. XDDD

Alright, alright. I'll shut up now.

[Stal]

Crystal: A fallacy is basically saying a mistake, a unintentional false-hood, a folly, that sort of thing all mixed together.

Anyway, TAA, I have an interesting thing for you to know...the Mythbusters on Discovery channel once tested the memory of a goldfish. They were trained to know exactly where to go to get there food (you would've had to see the sort of tank) and associate the color with food.

And that was over days at a time. 2 seconds? I think not.

I honestly have no thought if animals have souls or not. I believe they are more intelligent and self-aware than we give them credit for. Mother gorillas, some of the most caring animals in the world. Dolphins saving humans. Cats and Dogs drawn like a magnet to their owner when they sense they're down. My cat having an uncanny ability of knowing when I'm sitting in the floor working in my ledger (accounting-book thing) and then laying right on top of it...every single time (and the thing is, she's nowhere to be found before hand!).

Can you honestly stare into the eyes of an animal and not say they're intelligent? Whether I would say they have a soul like the kind humans do, I do believe that God has given animals more than is attributed to them today.

By the way, just an interesting fact, Dolphins are the only species known, other than humans, to have sex for fun.

for fun.

Does that seem like mere instinct and robotic-emotions?

((EDIT -- The question may arise as to how I can still eat meat at this point. I do so, because I know it's okay to. Being religious, I trust in the Bible and stuff and it says God gave us the meats to eat [within certain dietary restrictions, but that's a whole other topic]. I don't know if this series of intelligence is universal or not. Consider the intelligence attributed to the sorts of animals that God deemed 'Unclean and unfit to eat' as opposed to the attributed intelligence of those deemed 'clean meets and fit to eat.' ))

[mushroom]

Yuki said:

Crystal: A fallacy is basically saying a mistake, a unintentional false-hood, a folly, that sort of thing all mixed together.

No, it's an invalid argument. For example, it isn't a fallacy to say that New York City is the capital of New York. That's just an error. Fallacies are faulty logic--like mockery used in place of evidence ("You think we should ban guns? That's ridiculous!"), or circular logic ("Yeah, I think it's a good thing that this is illegal. After all, it is illegal!"), or the various ad hominems ("You're just saying that because you're a woman!" "You aren't trustworthy, so your claim must be false!"), or....

[The Angry Artist]

Fox said:

Is self-awareness even linked to memory? How does memory fit into the sense of being, the thought that "I am here right now existing"?

Self-awareness is the agknowledgement that you exist. It requires no memory because it is a continual thing, like constantly holding down the f5 key while browsing. Without self-awareness we would not be able to move, think, function, or even tap into the most base instincts of those 'memoryless' animals. I exist because I know I exist. I do not exist because I remember existing five years or five seconds ago - I exist right here right now because I am aware and concious of myself. Maybe not even concious - I am unconciously aware of my existance. It is a nessisity to life, how can something function if they are not even aware of their own life?

Unliving objects lack this ability and therefore, are souless. Animals do have this ability and thus, are not like a robot or a chair and have souls.

You are assuming that all animals act because they realize they exist and want to. But perhaps some animals only have enough brainpower to perform necessary functions.. Or that all animals think about everything they do. But this is just instinct -- responding to the environment around them. It's like homeostasis. It's automatic. Are you hot? Your blood vessels near the skin relax. Are you cold. Those same blood vessels contract.

But you ask whether or not memory is acomponent of self-awareness. But what is self-awareness? The realization of one's existence through reasoning. Reasoning is thinking. But what is thinking? According to the glossary of Pathways to Psychology: Second Edition by Robert J. Sternberg, thinking is "a psychological function that involves the creation and organization of information in the mind." But where does that information come from? From past experience. You get your information as you progress through life. Your brain organizes that information and stores it as memory. Without memory, any information you acquire cannot be filed and is lost. So if you cannot remember, you cannot think. I am not saying that all animals besides humans eithor are or are not self-aware. That would be the fallacy of Either/Or. Instead I'm wailling to accept any animal that has a memory and can think as being self-aware. But animals that can't do that? I very much think they are not self-aware.

And I might add that pressing the F5 key constantly would be very impractical and that I would rather you keep your circumstancial personal attacks out of the argument.

Crystal said:

No, I think you misunderstand my meaning.

Instead of calling other people's arguments stupid, why not put an argument for yourself? Show us fallacy-cle (I know, I can't speel. ^__^) people what it truly means to have an argument without fallacy.

Whatever fallacy is. I still don't know.

If you have no argument in the first place, why in the world are you tearing down IDL's and Erika's? If you believe only people have souls, why? It's not like you have to be knowledgable on the subject to have an opinion. Clearly you have one or you wouldn't be criticizing theirs. Please bear in mind that not everybody is so experienced as to have a brilliant debate style. Most of us are just junkies with an opinion sitting at the computer. Like me.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd prefer you to call my arguments stupid than to argue in terms that I've never heard before. My brain shuts down the minute I see something like "Fallacy" or "Argument from Ignorance". You may not have intended it that way, but it sounds so... pompous... and overbearing.... and well... I start feeling like I'm reading some musty old textbook, and I don't like textbooks. Especially musty ones. X.x They REALLY make me become stupid.

EDIT: Zeno of Elea? That was cruel, Kiddo. XDDD

Alright, alright. I'll shut up now.

I don't argue for only humans being self-aware because I can't. And I won't pretend I can either. It's just a gut feeling that I would prefer not to bring into the debate as it would be a fallacy and I wouldn't be able to support it. And I'm not calling anyone's arguments stupid. I'm pointing out the flawed logic in it. That's not calling an argument stupid; that's referencing catalogued false logic by which one proves a point.

Don't understand fallacies? I'm not talking about some secret cult-known argumenation device. I'm talking about a used method of disproving one's argument. The wide world of Google is waiting for you.

Yuki said:

Crystal: A fallacy is basically saying a mistake, a unintentional false-hood, a folly, that sort of thing all mixed together.

Anyway, TAA, I have an interesting thing for you to know...the Mythbusters on Discovery channel once tested the memory of a goldfish. They were trained to know exactly where to go to get there food (you would've had to see the sort of tank) and associate the color with food.

And that was over days at a time. 2 seconds? I think not.

I honestly have no thought if animals have souls or not. I believe they are more intelligent and self-aware than we give them credit for. Mother gorillas, some of the most caring animals in the world. Dolphins saving humans. Cats and Dogs drawn like a magnet to their owner when they sense they're down. My cat having an uncanny ability of knowing when I'm sitting in the floor working in my ledger (accounting-book thing) and then laying right on top of it...every single time (and the thing is, she's nowhere to be found before hand!).

Can you honestly stare into the eyes of an animal and not say they're intelligent? Whether I would say they have a soul like the kind humans do, I do believe that God has given animals more than is attributed to them today.

By the way, just an interesting fact, Dolphins are the only species known, other than humans, to have sex for fun.

for fun.

Does that seem like mere instinct and robotic-emotions?

((EDIT -- The question may arise as to how I can still eat meat at this point. I do so, because I know it's okay to. Being religious, I trust in the Bible and stuff and it says God gave us the meats to eat [within certain dietary restrictions, but that's a whole other topic]. I don't know if this series of intelligence is universal or not. Consider the intelligence attributed to the sorts of animals that God deemed 'Unclean and unfit to eat' as opposed to the attributed intelligence of those deemed 'clean meets and fit to eat.' ))

I will concede, Stalos, that my information about the goldfish is wrong and you are indeed correct on that point. Goldfish have in fact a memory of a few months.

And I won't say either all animals have souls or none. Animals that have a long term memory and are able to think I believe are self-aware.

I am a bit confused when you say, "Cats and Dogs drawn like a magnet to their owner when they sense they're down." Does that mean when the owner is down, even if the animal in question is no where in sight, the animal will feel it without sensing the owner through any sensory functions? If the animal does sense the owner, perhaps the animal has a companionship instinct. Or maybe dogs and cats are self-aware. That is a bit of a grey line for me. And as for your cat, you're using a False Cause. Perhaps your cat doesn't just know you're working with the ledger, -- maybe your cat knows something that you don't.

And please don't use a pathos argument (appeal to pity/emotion). Try to use as much logos (appeal to logic) as possible. It's not really a fallacy, but the best arguments use logos.

I might also note that your eating preferences are not in question.

EDIT: I'm sure those dolphins have fun. Which is a higher form of thinking. I'm thinking there that dolphins are self-aware.

[Kiddo]

The said:

And I might add that pressing the F5 key constantly would be very impractical and that I would rather you keep your circumstancial personal attacks out of the argument.


Don't understand fallacies? I'm not talking about some secret cult-known argumenation device. I'm talking about a used method of disproving one's argument. The wide world of Google is waiting for you.

And please don't use a pathos argument (appeal to pity/emotion). Try to use as much logos (appeal to logic) as possible. It's not really a fallacy, but the best arguments use logos.

f5 was an analogy. I am a computer science major, I enjoy analogies especially in relation to technology. Perhaps a better analogy would be a recursive function or an infinate loop, altough those have their flaws. (namely infinate loops cause the computer to crash and for the recursive function analogy to work it'd have to BE an infinate loop...)

Whatever. Basically, this post is to say I am bored now. I've been in quite a few debate only classes so far and not a single one has had fallacy-whatevers being thrown about. They were quite enjoyable, a kind of back and forth present and rebuttal format.

Anyways, I'm not going to look fallacy up on Google because I don't want to. I debate because I enjoy it, not because I want to prove myself better than my 'opponent.' Perhaps if this arguement consisted of "interesting, but what if we looked at it this way?" I'd stay, but since it's "fallacy, your arguement is flawed" I'm outta here. This debate isn't thought-provoking anymore. It's tedious and boring.

Edit: That sounds really terse. Okay, I'm not upset, just annoyed. I don't like this style of debating because it feels more like an arguement than an attempt to get new ideas out there. Kay? Good.

[Stal]

The said:

I will concede, Stalos, that my information about the goldfish is wrong and you are indeed correct on that point. Goldfish have in fact a memory of a few months.

And I won't say either all animals have souls or none. Animals that have a long term memory and are able to think I believe are self-aware.

I am a bit confused when you say, "Cats and Dogs drawn like a magnet to their owner when they sense they're down." Does that mean when the owner is down, even if the animal in question is no where in sight, the animal will feel it without sensing the owner through any sensory functions? If the animal does sense the owner, perhaps the animal has a companionship instinct. Or maybe dogs and cats are self-aware. That is a bit of a grey line for me. And as for your cat, you're using a False Cause. Perhaps your cat doesn't just know you're working with the ledger, -- maybe your cat knows something that you don't.

And please don't use a pathos argument (appeal to pity/emotion). Try to use as much logos (appeal to logic) as possible. It's not really a fallacy, but the best arguments use logos.

I might also note that your eating preferences are not in question.

EDIT: I'm sure those dolphins have fun. Which is a higher form of thinking. I'm thinking there that dolphins are self-aware.

Get off your high-horse.

People debate the way they want. Even if Pathos isn't necesarrily the universally accepted way to bring something up, it has it's place as long as you can look beyond just the simple pulling of the heart strings. That's not what I was going for. I was trying to get you to think beyond mere thought. I was trying to get you to actually take a look around the world.

And yes, I meant when an owner is down. It will never fail that when an owner is down, it won't take long before the animal in question comes up and does what it can to cheer the person up.

As for my Cat, I was throwing her in there for a bit of humor.

"Oh but that's not an accepted form of debating! You can't be humorous"...uhm...do I care? Even in Presidential debates they make jokes. I could care less about the accepted rigid form or boring-debates that debate clubs use. We're not a debate club. This is a discussion and debate forum. People will do what they want. You only have to worry about yourself.

And think about how boring the debates would be if everyone argued the way you say they should.

[Crystal]

The said:

I don't argue for only humans being self-aware because I can't. And I won't pretend I can either. It's just a gut feeling that I would prefer not to bring into the debate as it would be a fallacy and I wouldn't be able to support it. And I'm not calling anyone's arguments stupid. I'm pointing out the flawed logic in it. That's not calling an argument stupid; that's referencing catalogued false logic by which one proves a point.

Don't understand fallacies? I'm not talking about some secret cult-known argumenation device. I'm talking about a used method of disproving one's argument. The wide world of Google is waiting for you.

Uhhh... you kinda said "Would you prefer to call the arguments stupid?" I took that to mean that yes, you MEANT that they were stupid. I'm not referring to fallacies as some kind of cult-whatever-device. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Whatever it is, I just meant that you'd get a great deal better results by NOT using the huge technical-like terms. ;D

KKM said:

No, it's an invalid argument. For example, it isn't a fallacy to say that New York City is the capital of New York. That's just an error. Fallacies are faulty logic--like mockery used in place of evidence ("You think we should ban guns? That's ridiculous!"), or circular logic ("Yeah, I think it's a good thing that this is illegal. After all, it is illegal!"), or the various ad hominems ("You're just saying that because you're a woman!" "You aren't trustworthy, so your claim must be false!"), or....

I see. ^____^ I thought it was an error.

Thanks, Stal and Kiddo. X.x You said it all better than I could have.

[The Angry Artist]

Crystal said:

Uhhh... you kinda said "Would you prefer to call the arguments stupid?" I took that to mean that yes, you MEANT that they were stupid. I'm not referring to fallacies as some kind of cult-whatever-device. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Whatever it is, I just meant that you'd get a great deal better results by NOT using the huge technical-like terms. ;D



I see. ^____^ I thought it was an error.

Ohhhh, I think I wasn't being clear. I wasn't calling the argument stupid; I was calling the emu(s) stupid. I never said, "Would you prefer to call the arguments stupid?"

[Crystal]

The said:

Ohhhh, I think I wasn't being clear. I wasn't calling the argument stupid; I was calling the emu(s) stupid. I never said, "Would you prefer to call the arguments stupid?"

X.x

I feel dumb now.

[Tdyans]

Fox said:

Alright, if we're gonna argue this, why are we doing so without defining our terms first? Just what is a soul? How can we argue how possesses one of it we don't know what a soul is?

This is important-- one of the first things that I learned in college: always define your terms. If you're all arguing using the same words but with completely different definitions behind them, you're never going to get anywhere because you're not even starting from the same platform. I think everyone has their different ideas on that platform in this case, so it may not be possible, but anyway....

Here's something that was said by one of my Sunday school leaders-- the main point was not about animals having souls or not, but it did get mentioned: We (humans) are made up of three parts-- body, soul, and spirit. "Spirit" seems to get conflated with "soul" a lot and I think that's problematic when you're trying to have a discussion like this where specific definitions for terms are so important.

Body: The physical body and all that entails, obviously.
Soul: That part of you that relates to other living beings. You might say your personality. I've also seen thoughts and feelings put under this category, which I think is true to some extent, but I think that the body can also have an influence on those things. Kiddo's explanation seems good.
Spirit: That part of you that relates to God. You might say, I suppose, your conscience (among other things)?

Under those definitions, I would say (and so did the person giving the definitions) that yes, animals have souls.

Do animals go to Heaven? I really don't think I have the knowledge or authority to say yes or no, though I trust that they are at peace when they die either way. After that, my thinking is much like Crystal's: if I get to see my pets in Heaven, that's wonderful, but whatever God's plan for animals is, I trust that it's best.

[Kiddo]

Tdyans said:

Do animals go to Heaven? I really don't think I have the knowledge or authority to say yes or no, though I trust that they are at peace when they die either way. After that, my thinking is much like Crystal's: if I get to see my pets in Heaven, that's wonderful, but whatever God's plan for animals is, I trust that it's best.

I was in a Bible study during the summer where our leader (a pastor) asked if we had one question to ask God, what would it be? Everyone was picking the huge ones that no one can find the answer to.

I said I'd ask if animals went to heaven. Man did I get some strange looks.

[Tdyans]

Fox said:

I was in a Bible study during the summer where our leader (a pastor) asked if we had one question to ask God, what would it be? Everyone was picking the huge ones that no one can find the answer to.

I said I'd ask if animals went to heaven. Man did I get some strange looks.

I'm curious what the other questions were like. I think this is one that trips up a lot more people than some realize, (but maybe this is the influence of the time I spend at the rat forum), and if you got the answer, you could help settle a lot of people's minds. Of course, it's not the only thing in the world that people question/wonder about/don't understand and would want to ask God about, but I don't think it's a bad question.

[Linnen Malfoy]

Fox said:

I was in a Bible study during the summer where our leader (a pastor) asked if we had one question to ask God, what would it be? Everyone was picking the huge ones that no one can find the answer to.

I said I'd ask if animals went to heaven. Man did I get some strange looks.

I remeber those questions from Sunday school. Everyone asked things like "Where did we come from?" and things like that.

I don't remeber what I asked, but if I met God I'd ask him if Voldemort wears shoes. I mean, he's gotta know that, right?

As for the soul debate we had such a thing in my Hebrew school class in which we had a rousing debate to which the teacher, in the end, said flatly that animals didn't have souls and that was that.

But if that's true, then animals are simply husks which don't even 'exist' on a certian level. After coming home from a five week absence to see my dog running head long into a basket that she didn't see because she was so excited to see me, I think I'm going to more or less say that the latter is probably not true.