Do animals have souls?

[EOTE]

Other than humans, that is. And by soul I mean something that exists outside of one's physical body that helps determine who you are as a person/being.

I should start off by saying that I'm an agnostic and I'm not 100% convinced that souls exist. However, I think it's a good deal more likely that souls exist than that God exists. My father and I have had a number of conversations regarding souls and he's firmly convinced that they exist. He's made a number of convincing arguments. I'm not a fatalist, I strongly believe in free will. Through our discussions, I've come very much to believe that a belief in free will should strongly correlate with a belief in the soul. Considering how little is left to chance in the physical world, I almost have to believe in a soul to still believe that everything in the world isn't predetermined.

So, I had come very close to becoming convinced that souls exist when a troubling thought entered my head. Why wouldn't animals have souls? If you believe in souls, you have to believe one of three possibilities:

1) Only humans have souls.
2) Humans have souls as well as a select group of other animals (perhaps simians and cetaceans). Or
3) All life regardless of how complex has some form of a soul.

I've found that the great majority of people who believe in souls believe that they're exclusive to humans. If that was the case, wouldn't it stand to reason that humans evolved their soul? At one point in the history of human evolution, there would have to have been some point where one of our predecessors had to have lacked a soul because all life stems from some ancient single-celled organism. If you consider that, is it possible that other animals will evolve a soul in time? Is #3 correct and human bodies contain trillions of simple organisms each with their own souls?

So, what do you think? If you believe in the soul, do you think option 1, 2 or 3 is most likely? Why do you believe so? If you don't believe in the soul or think it's very unlikely that the soul exist and have a reasoning for that, I'd love to hear that too.

[Brickbat]

1. The older I get, the less I think there are souls.

Energy, yes, that gets passed on to other people in the memories they have of us; and in the trees we plant and the carbon we burn, but not souls. I could be wrong. I don't think animals have souls.

[EOTE]

56. So, have you thought about how that energy gets passed on?

If energy and matter interact in an entirely zero sum game, then if we gain energy through memories, wouldn't mass or energy need to be taken from elsewhere? Have you thought about how that energy and matter are transferred from one being to another?

[Brickbat]

58. I don't think we gain "energy" in the e=mc2 sense through memories. I phrased that poorly.

I was talking more about the inspiration and emotions we get through our memories. I see a tree my grandmother has planted, and I gain pleasure, nostalgia, love, and possibly inspiration to plant my own tree. I think of a dog I used to have, I feel pleasure and sadness that he's gone, and am inspired to adopt another dog.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

2. They have more of a soul than many humans I know.

The only difference is animals have kept their innocence while we have not.

[EOTE]

3. So where is the line drawn?

Do all animals have souls or just a select few? If it's only a select few, is it only the animals with advanced intelligence?

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

4. Why does there have to be a line at all?

:shrug:

[EOTE]

7. That's what I'm asking.

So I assume you believe that all life, no matter how simple, has a soul?

[pitohui]

126. no -- "soul" is not abt innocence, it's about complexity

those animals who have a "soul" and who can exist beyond their body are not innocent, they are complex

it requires personality and character (not always a good character, just some sort of character) to create whatever goes into creating a "soul"

a place is haunted not by the ghosts of the innocent so much as by the ghosts of those who have had some glad or dread experience, you don't have the motivation to exist w.out a body if you are "simple" and "innocent" at least not in my exploration of such things -- not that i'm any expert, indeed, i feel i'm pretty much fumbling around in my understanding but i don't think there is anything to suggest that the innocent have souls

a soul requires depth

animals are not necessarily innocent, particularly those who have much human contact, or those of certain species that are always looking for the main chance, say a raven

i could be completely barking up the wrong tree here, this is just my opinion

[EOTE]

138. Thanks for that.

And I agree 100%. I'd like to think that innocence is entirely a good thing, but if animals were entirely innocent, that seems to me that they'd lack free will and hence, a soul. I'm not religious, but I think it would be comparable to Adam and Eve before eating from the tree of knowledge. The event that gave them free will (and perhaps a soul) also robbed them of their innocence.

I can tell you've thought a lot about this.

[madinmaryland]

5. Does such a thing as a "soul" exist?? That is what you are implying.

Can you prove that such a thing does exist, and can you explain why such a thing exists and what exactly it is?

Then I will try and answer your question.

[EOTE]

8. I think I made this all quite clear in my OP.

No I can't prove that a soul exists, if I could, I obviously wouldn't harbor any doubts as to whether it exists. I also explained to the best of my ability what I believe it to be, if it does exist.

[madinmaryland]

10. So, it is your belief in a soul that leads you to believe that a soul exists.

The soul is an invention of the human brain to explain the difference that humans have from all other living beings. A soul is in essence the human brain which is able to reason. The human brain is a very powerful instrument.

[EOTE]

13. You seem to be having some reading problems.

I don't know whether a soul exists or not. I explained why I think it may be likely that souls do exist and it's not a tautological argument.

Since you obviously believe that the soul does not exist, I have to ask if you're a fatalist. If you're not, how do you mesh your belief system with a lack of soul? The physical world is extremely ordered. Where do we get free will if nearly everything in the physical world is predetermined? If our brain is nothing but chemicals and cells which have entirely rigid interactions with each other, then free will must exist somewhere outside of our physical body. Lack of a blief in the soul meshes entirely with fatalism, but I've never been able to buy into fatalism.

[Inchworm]

50. Best sub-thread evah!

:rofl:

Making a note: don't argue with EOTE.

:P

[tigereye]

166. he has a nice way of interacting- patient, firm and open-minded!

not as common around here as it should be!

[wickerwoman]

114. With all due respect,

lack of belief in a soul has absolutely nothing to do with fatalism.

The physical world is not "ordered" (or at least is not any more ordered than it is disordered.) You can find as much chaos, struggle, serendipity and just plain insanity as you can find order and determinism.

Our existence is by chance, our "soul" are chemical reactions in the brain, we have free will and nothing is predetermined.

That seems like a perfectly consistent line of reasoning to me. Far more so than "the world is ordered", "we don't have souls", "we have no free will".

[EOTE]

117. That's not exactly what I was saying.

What I was saying is that free will is hard to reconcile if you don't believe that there is something that influences our behavior beyond the observable, physical world.

You mention that there is much chaos in the universe. I'd argue that while many things may look like chaos, if you study them closely enough you can determine things were predetermined to act that way. We do know that the behavior of particles is determined by laws and not suggestions. Scientists can accurately predict the behavior of particles all the way down to the quantum mechanical level. Who knows, some day we may even be able to determine behavior on the quantum mechanical level as well. That to me says that our behavior is predetermined as well, unless something outside of our observable, physical world influences our behavior.

I think it's very likely that our existence is by chance. If one subscribes to the theory of a multiverse, I'd think it's likely that we're part of a very tiny percentage of universes which contain intelligent, sentient life. I think chance is the most likely explanation of how we came to be. However, I don't necessarily agree that what we believe to be a soul is simply chemical reactions in the brain. Once again, we know what our brain is composed of. We know it's neurons and glia and chemicals which interact with them. Considering we know to a large extent how those cells and chemicals react with each other, in time we should be able to determine precisely how the brain works and exactly how one individual's thought processes work. That, to me, would indicate that if free will exists, it exists outside of the physical world.

[wickerwoman]

145. We're just coming at the problem from irreconcialable positions, I'm afraid.

A few weeks ago, I found out that a girl I was friends with in high school in Seattle and haven't spoken to in fifteen years not only lives in the same city but *works in the same building* as me in New Zealand, 7000 miles away from where we grew up.

You can take an example like that and say:

1.) Shit happens. Maybe there's a one in twenty billion chance that we would end up working in the same building and we happened to hit that very slim probability or,

2.) There is such a thing as fate and we were predestined to run into each other for some purpose (what purpose? devised by whom?)

I'm not prepared for all the frantic invention implied by choice #2. Shit does happen. The law of probability implies that every once in a while, even incredibly unlikely things happen. That doesn't mean they are predestined.

And a "law" as defined in science is not the same thing as predestination. The "law" of gravity just says that every time we've dropped something in the past, it's fallen down. If we dropped something tomorrow and it fell up instead of down, we would have to rewrite the law. It's a human construct to explain something that we don't completely understand.

Gravity/Relativity/Thermodynamics etc. are not "laws of the universe" is the sense of unchangeable explanations of how things *always* work handed to us by an omniscient entity. They are theoretical constructs devised by scientists based on observed phenomena. Tomorrow we might find that entropy is bullshit. We may find another universe where things fall up. That's why we can't take a scientific "law" and say that it implies predestination.

Yes, there is cause and effect and probability, which may make the universe look ordered, but there is no evidence that anything is planned or predestined or that we don't have free will.

[EOTE]

149. I think you've assumed I've made a statement when in fact I've asked a question.

First of all, with regard to the "laws of the universe", yes, they are unchangeable. Otherwise they'd be theories. And no, they weren't handed to us by an omniscient entity. Entropy will always remain, and eventually our universe will end because of it. There may be another universe where things fall up, but if you believe in a multiverse, you also have to believe that each universe behaves according to its own laws.

Of course there are coincidences, sometimes incredibly improbable ones. And I don't know whether free will exists or not. What I was saying is, that if free will does exist, it most likely has to exist due to something outside of the four dimensions we're capable of observing. Considering it's almost a given that more than 4 dimensions exist (there are perhaps more than 20), it doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me that our free will, and perhaps our consciousness reside outside of those 4. We can only describe what a thought is in the most vague of terms, scientists really can't explain what one is. The same thing goes for consciousness.

And yes, there is no evidence that anything is predetermined or that we don't have free will. There is also no evidence that everything isn't predetermined or that free will exists. I also see nothing to suggest that one scenario is more likely than the other, other than my strong desire to be in control of my life.

[wickerwoman]

213. When you say "the 'laws of the universe'... are unchangeable"

you *are* making a statement and it is not one supported by reputable science. The basic assumption of all science is uncertainty. In that sense, yes, what is called a "law" in science is what is called a "theory" in general conversation. It's just a theory that has been demonstrated so many times that it is taken (in the absence of contradictory evidence) as a fact.

You have no basis for saying "entropy will always remain". Actually the sentence "entropy will *always* remain and our universe will *end* because of it" is logically inconsistent. If entropy is a law of the universe and the universe ends, how can you possibly know what happens to entropy?

You can't make "always" statements in science. That's not what scientific laws are. Check any freshman high school level science textbook if you don't believe me.

You may be asking questions, but they are loaded with assumptions about objective knowledge when in fact the possibility of knowing anything objectively is impossible to prove given our current limitations.

In the broader sense, I can't prove that unicorns are pink *or* that turtles are green. That doesn't mean that the two premises have an equal possibility of being true.

[tigereye]

168. sure, lack of belief can seem like fatalism. The physical world is quite ordered.

I'm not sure our existence is by chance, no one really knows for sure. You can't prove that anymore than the folks who believe in a deity can prove their point of view! :rofl: Your viewpoint is as much a construct as those of the other folks who have differing beliefs on this thread. :shrug:


We don't know if everything is just chemical reactions (although neurobiology would point to that view), but lots of folks would argue that point. I don't think science has really found out a fraction of what is involved in the universe, the brain or our interactions with our environment. I think we will continue to be surprised for decades to come!

[wickerwoman]

214. My position is "I don't know and neither do you."

"I don't know" is not a construct.

I agree that we haven't found out everything about the universe. But the likelihood of a deity existing as conceived by any of the major religious traditions in the world today is far less likely than its non-existence judging from the extremely high level of internal inconsistency within each of those traditions and the fact that their statements about the way the universe works have repeatedly been shown to be incorrect.

[tigereye]

217. oh for God's sake (he-he)

It's ok not to know. Lack of surety could well be a construct. A conceptual framework.


Religion - a fallacy, a construct, the opiate of masses, whatever Dawkins and his ilk are calling it this week... Although I am not highly religious, I choose to look to be amazed by the beauty of belief in some sort of higher power in all it's complexity, anthropologically, philosophically, teleologically, psychologically, theologically and in the wonder of the systems that have been created by man certainly, but from sort of intangible inspiration.

And I don't think that Joseph Campbell would agree with you about the level of internal consistency. Many cultures and religions have highly homogeneous themes.


ah, not sure why I'm arguing. I just am tired of the rigid and unimaginative dismissal of belief systems that have sustained humans for thousands of years. "It can't be true", seems too simplistic a rejection of so much.

[CreekDog]

116. You want powerful instrument?

[deutsey]

6. My son's Guinea pig died last night. Here's what I wrote him

It is sad that Beary has died.

As I said last night, though, this is an example of the big natural cycle that all life is a part of.

I believe that the universe and everything in it (planets, stars, galaxies, all life on Earth and where ever else it exists in the universe) comes from one source. Some people call it God, some call it by other religious and non-religious names. Whatever it's called, this source, for me, is where the life energy comes from that makes the stars shine, the planets rotate, the grass grow, our lungs to breathe, and our hearts to beat.

I believe that when anything dies, its energy goes back to that source. Maybe its energy comes back here again later like in the trees after winter, maybe its energy becomes one with the source and stays with it. I don't know. But I do believe Beary's life energy (his spirit) is back again now with the source of all life.

So when I said say a little prayer for Beary, I meant: say a prayer to that source that his spirit is now with. Something like:

Great source of all life,
Thank you for the time we shared with Beary, however short it was
Thank you for the opportunity we had to care for him
Thank you for the laughter he gave us and the imagination he inspired in us
Thank you for teaching us how to love another creature
We don't understand why Beary had to leave us now, but we trust his spirit has returned to you and is at peace
Help us in our sadness to grow from this experience, just as our good times with Beary also helped us to grow
Let Beary continue to live in us through our memories of him

[EOTE]

16. That's a beautiful ode.

I hope your son is taking it all right.

It seems to me that you're saying all things have some sort of soul. That somehow seems more believable to me than just humans (or even more intelligent life) having souls.

[tigereye]

17. that's a very nice explanation

not everything in this world has to be quantifiable, might take a bit of the mystery out of it, eh? :)

[Angry Dragon]

46. For a long time I have also believed that everything is just

energy and it just changes. You have said it better than me.

[BlueJazz]

9. I don't believe I have a Soul....although James Brown did.

[flvegan]

11. If a person believes that they do indeed have a soul, themselves...

they're pretty selfish and full of self-importance to believe that each and every animal does not. Any being with a sense of self, I believe, has a soul.

[EOTE]

12. So then, did we (and other animals) evolve souls?

And which animals do you consider to have a sense of self? I honestly don't know what to believe and as of late I've really been struggling with the issue.

Just within the past month or so scientists have actually CONSTRUCTED a living organism. I think about the potential that resides in this capability and it boggles my mind like nothing else. Could humans create life which would eventually evolve a soul? Could man manipulate life to create better souls? Evil souls? I think about all the possibilities including that souls don't exist and nothing seems to make sense to me.

[flvegan]

26. Evolve souls?

My belief differs a bit from the usual Christian belief of a soul. Buddhist-Christian, here.

Which animals have a sense of self? All of them. Oddly enough, they have a sense of self without having the burden of ego. Something we humans would do well without.

[EOTE]

29. Does that include single celled life as well?

Or is it only life that has a brain? If it's only life with a brain, at one point in the course of evolution, that life evolved a brain, wouldn't it make sense to say that the soul was evolved?

If it's all life including single celled organisms, are we beings comprised of trillions of souls?

[flvegan]

31. I don't know.

I don't know if single-celled organisms have any sense of being, sense of self.

[EOTE]

32. Would you agree that a sense of self was evolved?

Certainly there are creatures which are self aware and creatures which are not. And at one point in the course of evolution, beings which currently have a sense of self, did not have a sense of self. So wouldn't it make sense to say that the soul was evolved?

I tend to think there in a soul because in my mind I can't mesh free will with the lack of a soul. But then I think about the 3 scenarios I list above and the option that most makes sense to me is that the soul was evolved.

[flvegan]

33. That, to me, would be like asking

if an egg has a sense of self. Through "influence" it has the chance to "evolve" to a being with a sense of self.

I see your point, and it is a good one. I just don't think there's a simple answer to that, being a yes/no answer.

[EOTE]

199. Thanks for your input.

I like simple answers, but I know that they're few and far between in issues like this. You've certainly given me food for thought, though.

[Arugula Latte]

14. Personally, I don't think any being has a soul, really, but

why would human animals have souls and non-human animals not have them? In the multi-billion year evolution of life on Earth humans have not always been the top animal. We are not the center of the universe; we are just one of many life forms on a speck of dust in a vast universe of billions of galaxies and billions upon billions of planets.

[EOTE]

47. It could be that we evolved a soul.

It could be that we're not the only species to have evolved a soul. Perhaps other life forms in other galaxies have evolved souls as well.

[tigereye]

15. very interesting question - some folks I know who are interested in

animal spirit guides would argue that they do... As for myself, I don't know. Soul is a very complex concept that theologians have wrestled with for centuries.


I really think the world and it's "intangibles" are much more complex than people think they are.

[EOTE]

20. I think I'll be wrestling with this for the rest of my life.

I'm not a religious person, but there are many times when I wish I had learned more about theology when I was still in school. I've got such conflicting thoughts in my head and I just know there's a piece of the equation that will help everything to make sense to me.

[tigereye]

37. hmm, someone I know just told me that animals all have different types of

souls- they have been studying more Native American/shamanistic perspectives. Interesting.

[JTG of the PRB]

18. I'm not 100% convinced that humans have souls, but I'm absolutely certain that dogs do.

And despite not knowing a lot about cats (since I'm allergic and all), I think the same goes for them.

[EOTE]

21. I tend to agree with you there.

If souls do exist, I find it hard to believe that dogs don't have them (perhaps cats too). I'm constantly amazed at the lengths dogs will go to selflessly please their owners and I know that many dogs would give their lives to save their owners. Humans can be selfless too, but I believe that selflessness needs to be learned from society. Dogs, it seems, don't need to learn to do these selfless acts, in spite of millions of years of evolution which should pressure them to behave oppositely.

[KamaAina]

19. Yes.

It's Republicans who don't. :P

[rrneck]

22. If

you believe they do. They do.

[stray cat]

23. Do people?

[GoneOffShore]

25. And we have a winner!

Souls, like gods, are a human construct in a fruitless search for the "meaning of life".

Try 42.

[tigereye]

38. looking for the meaning of life is never fruitless

It can offer folks more complexity. It's one of the things that makes us interesting, curious, full of wonder.

[GoneOffShore]

143. Life and the world around us makes us interesting, curious and full of wonder.

Looking for meaning isn't necessary.

We're accidents and surprise and chaos are the most we can hope for.

[tigereye]

164. nope, don't buy it, but carry on and enjoy!

If no one felt the need to look for meaning in our existence, think of all the great art and literature that would never have been written. Glad some folks are still interested in looking.

:hi:

[GoneOffShore]

183. Oh, I'm interested - I just don't find that navel gazing is the way to go.

I make pictures because I like to make pictures, not because I'm looking for some deeper meaning.

When I wrote songs, I did it because I liked to write songs.

Sometimes the over-examined life is just that. And the search for that indefinable something or purpose - a strange itch to be scratched, occasionally by music, art or driving really fast.

[tigereye]

211. suum quique

[LanternWaste]

74. As is all philosophy and art

"are a human construct in a fruitless search for the "meaning of life"...."

As is all philosophy and art. Though I imagine that one's man's fruit is another man's fruitless.

[EOTE]

28. I don't know.

I explained why I think it's likely they do. Can you tell me how to mesh free will with the lack of a soul? Or do you not believe in free will?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

24. Self-aware mind? I think it probable that some species have it.

"Something that exists outside of one's physical body"? Sorry, no such thing.

[tigereye]

39. hmm, i know someone who would debate that with you at great length

:hi: I tend to go back and forth myself.

[EOTE]

44. My dad is one of those people.

I've always known my dad was a smart man, which is why I was initially shocked to learn that he believes in a soul. I used to have a very condescending view that only highly religious and/or uneducated people believe in the soul. His defense for the existence of the soul is very scientific and not religious at all. I still have reservations, of course, but he's been moving me into his camp for a while now.

[tigereye]

163. I think our brains have a great capacity to engage with things outside them

but I also think that every thing that occurs may not necessarily be explained from a neurological point of view.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

49. About other species' consciousness or about the non-physical stuff?

[tigereye]

162. both!

:D

[baldguy]

27. Look into these eyes and tell me they don't.

RIP Zelda

[EOTE]

54. What a beautiful dog.

Yes, I'd find it hard to believe that if a soul exists, that animals such as dogs don't have them.

[Mad_Dem_X]

110. Awwww...what a sweet baby!

Looking into my own dog's eyes is what convinced me that dogs do, indeed, have souls. They feel sadness and empathy, just like humans do.

[Lucian]

30. No. And neither do humans.

[TK421]

35. I don't think they do, and neither do humans for that matter

I think that the belief that humans have a soul is connected to the fact that humans are scared shitless of the possibility that there is nothing there after they die...they don't see their loved ones or deceased pets in a big, glowing field of flowers...it is all wishful thinking I think.

I think religion ties into this one, as well...since most religions focus on a life "after" death...where I believe there is none

there is only darkness...blackness, like just before you were born you remember nothing and feel nothing

so it is nothingness...neither painful or painless

the belief in an afterlife gives people comfort and that is why most of them have found God in their lives

[Sebastian Doyle]

34. I swear one of my dogs was the reincarnation of a dog I had before.

Both of them really liked cats. As in..... REALLY liked cats.

The only two dogs I've ever seen with that particular attraction. Had a couple of other habits just like the other dog too. I swear she was reincarnated, and before that I really never believed in reincarnation.

And without a soul, reincarnation wouldn't be possible.

[pitohui]

127. i've received other reports of this nature

i've also heard of dogs etc "channeling" as it were picking up a habit or toy of the former pet just that one last time to say good-bye, then the new dog goes back to its own personality

it's hard to talk abt such matters

[Iggo]

36. No.

[ZombieHorde]

40. I don't believe in souls, so I don't think animals have them.

I've found that the great majority of people who believe in souls believe that they're exclusive to humans. If that was the case, wouldn't it stand to reason that humans evolved their soul?

I would guess people who believe humans have souls, and other animals do not have souls, are coming to this conclusion from their religion. The Book of Genesis says people are made in God's image, many people believe this statement is about souls.

edit to ask: Does option 3 include plant life and viruses?

[EOTE]

41. Plant life, yes. Viruses, I don't know.

I believe that the concensus is that viruses aren't considered life because they can't replicate without a host, so I believe they wouldn't count.

Edited to add: I suppose I could have included a fourth option where everything, living or not, has a soul.

[ZombieHorde]

42. There are some insects which require hosts to replicate.

Such as a type of wasp which needs to lay its eggs in large spiders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_wasp

Would these wasps not have souls since they use a host to replicate?

[EOTE]

43. I'm only pondering one of several options.

I don't know whether some life, all life or no life has a soul. It has to be one of those three options, yet none of them make sense to me. I'm hoping to get some insight to my paradox.

[jobycom]

45. Whatever we have, they have.

I don't believe we have an immortal or extra-body soul. I think the chemicals and neurons and other reactions that animate us create unique traits that define us, and "soul" is a good name for it. I believe that what people describe as a soul is a good metaphor to identify something we all sort of know is there. But there's nothing immortal about it, and it is simply a trait of the physical processes of our bodies. When we die, it all dies.

And yeah, I believe the same about animals. That's one reason I'm a vegetarian. Although, it gives me an odd perspective. Most people as part of their daily diet cause the deaths of three or four animals. Those animals love their lives--if you've ever watched an animal die, you know they do, as much as we do--and they die in horrible, brutal ways, leaving behind other animals who love them as we love each other. When I hear people get furious about, say, Michael Vick's dog fighting, but who still eat meat, I have trouble understanding their outrage. In some ways I do--there's a difference between killing an animal for fun and killing it to use--but to me they both look the same, since I don't eat them. Oddly, rather than make me angry at meat eaters, it makes me less angry at animal thrill-killers. Not un-angry, just less angry.

As for your three possibilities, there are plenty of other religions who believe all forms of animals have souls, and even that inanimate objects have souls. That's a necessary believe behind forms of reincarnation that allow you to come back as a squid.

[Angry Dragon]

48. Post #6 perhaps said it better than I can

I too have pondered the existence of souls for many years. I looked at it from the view point that everything in the universe is made up of energy. Energy is never lost or gained it just changes form. Everything in the universe is inter-connected by energy. Your thoughts are energy, electrical impulses. The energy that you carry inside of you makes you unique, different from all other humans and different from all other life. There is no human that is ever the same as you, never was, never will be. I suppose we could call this a soul if you like.

When we die the energy is realized and it or could form into another human or be split into many different things. My thoughts have not progressed past this to tell you where the energy goes.

It is my belief that humans have souls, animals have souls, and if energy is what makes us have souls one could say everything has a soul.

[tigereye]

169. good answer!

[Inchworm]

51. Seems like Descartes tackled this one.. tired of looking hehe

Well, actually I did have a few hours of good reading at link, but I think my eyes are bleeding :P

http://net.cgu.edu/philosophy/descartes/Passions_Part_One.html

I hope to find this thread in the morning with all the answers you seek ;)

G'night

:hi:

[EOTE]

55. It's going to take me a while to absorb all of that.

I think Descarte's mind worked entirely differently from mine. As for answers, I'm not sure about that, but I have found some new and interesting questions. I imagine this will be something I'll be thinking about the bulk of my life. Thanks for the link!

[Skip Intro]

52. Yes.

[EOTE]

64. So which option do you believe most likely to be accurate?

1, 2 or 3?

[Withywindle]

53. If anyone does, animals do. I've met many blank and empty humans, but never seen...

..soullessness in a cat or dog's eyes.

My point of view: I am a Pagan/animist/polytheist.

I do believe in immortal souls, and my belief is firmly 3. I think everything that lives has some form of "soul" and that for humans to make distinctions about what a "soul" is based on our limited, species-specific understanding is a very high version of hubris -- which most human religions, from Christianity to Wicca to Judaism to Buddhism - acknowledges as a sin.

My belief is this: Everything that lives has its own version of a soul. I see no evidence to think ours is superior.

I've met many trees who had souls I thought were deeper than the souls of many humans. I know it's not my place to judge but I know whose company I valued more.

[EOTE]

57. What do you mean by firmly 3?

Do you believe that all living things have 3 souls? Also, does that mean that humans are comprised of many living organisms which have their own souls? I agree it's an uphill task to even really identify what a soul is, but I'm trying to be as open-minded about it as possible.

Also, do you believe that our souls are what gives us free will? Do you believe that all things with a soul have some sort of free will?

Anyway, thanks for your response. It's given me more to think about.

[Withywindle]

77. I mean option number 3 on the list.

and I mean it firmly. That's all. :D

[EOTE]

82. Ahhh, gotcha now.

As I've progressed in life, I've found it more and more likely that a soul exists. And then I thought about those three options last night and none of them make sense to me. However, the lack of a soul doesn't make sense to me either.

[Inchworm]

59. Reminds me of reading John Muir (added quote and link)

He talked with trees and wondered what they have seen if I remember correctly.

:hi:

EDIT: added quote and link

"We all flow from one fountain Soul. All are expressions of one Love. God does not appear, and flow out, only from narrow chinks and round bored wells here and there in favored races and places, but He flows in grand undivided currents, shoreless and boundless over creeds and forms and all kinds of civilizations and peoples and beasts, saturating all and fountainizing all."

-from Life and Letters of John Muir

http://www.sierraclub.org/john_muir_exhibit/life/

:hi:

[Withywindle]

220. Thank you for that quote, it's amazing.

:hi:


Yes. That is what I believe.

[geardaddy]

60. Yes, tasty, tasty souls.

It's the best part of the animal!

:hide:

[Deep13]

61. Souls don't exist. So, no. nt

[EOTE]

62. Do you believe in free will? If so, how do you reconcile a soul with having free will? NT

[Deep13]

69. Souls don't exist, so there is nothing to reconcile.

And there's no such thing as free will either. Human behaviour is as predictable as gravity.

[EOTE]

70. That's what I was looking for.

So, no free will and no soul. Those two concepts are easy to reconcile. If I didn't believe in free will, I'd have no problem believing that the soul doesn't exist either. However, I can't quite get myself to believe that free will doesn't exist. I have no real basis for that belief, scientific or otherwise. I guess fatalism just scares the hell out of me.

Thank you for being honest, a lot of the replies I've been getting don't really make sense to me. As scary as it would be for me to believe as you do, it's certainly a consistent ideology.

[Deep13]

89. It's not really fatalism. An individual has some discretion...

... an freedom in how to act. I really don't think there needs to be a soul for that. People as well as certain other animals have a degree of intelligence. That's on the level of the individual. Even so, that discretion is pretty well limited by what a person knows and what his or her basic needs are. We are all products of our environments and of genetics and what we will chose is largely circumscribed by that.

It's when we look at groups of people that we become really predictable. If I can draw an analogy, in particle physics there is an uncertainty principal which prevents us from knowing with absolute certainty the exact position or properties of a particle. As a result, there is an element of chance in predicting how particles will act. When considering large numbers of particles, however, those individual uncertainties average out and the properties of the larger mass becomes completely predictable. That's how human behavior is. Whatever illusion of free will exists for an individual is gone when one looks at a group of a few hundred, to say nothing of towns, cities or nations.

I don't really consider it an ideology, either. Having no reason to accept the existence of souls, I don't. All existing evidence shows that what we understand about how human thinking works (which is not a great deal) can all be explained by physical, biological causes. Likewise, the behavior of humans is well known and predictable, even if the causes of that behavior are not. So it's not like I decided to accept a materialistic world view. It's just that the evidence points that way and I'm not willing to allow what I want to be true to influence what I accept as true.

[EOTE]

97. Isn't "freedom in how to act" the same thing as free will?

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems like you're contradicting yourself here.

Certainly human beings can be rather predictable. But can they be 100% predictable? That would be the case if human beings lacked free will. If free will didn't exist, sometime in the future, when we had the technology, we could 100% accurately predict the future just by entering in a staggering amount of known variables.

[Deep13]

101. I don't know if you will choose apple or orange...

...but I know you will eat something. I know you will want to sleep indoors. I know you will want a job that can support your needs. Odds are you will or have been married at some point in your life, had have or will have at least one kid and that it's even odds your marriage ended or will end in divorce. From an individual point of view it seems like one makes his or her own choices, but that's only because we cannot yet account for everything behind every mundane decision. On a large scale, we pretty much can predict the future because those variables will average out in large groups.

Still, even if we have some amount of free will, it is not evidence of a soul.

[EOTE]

102. So where do we get free will from?

Would you agree that we can accurately predict the behavior of particles (at least until we get down to the quantum mechanical level)? Would you agree that our physical bodies are made up of nothing but these particles? Wouldn't it stand to reason that our behavior could eventually be predicted entirely due to the study of how these particles interact with each other? If our behavior could be entirely predictable, wouldn't that negate free will?

[Deep13]

111. If we knew all the variables and how they work...

...I am supposing a person would be entirely predictable. Nevertheless, that would be a gigantic undertaking because a person has some many variables, many of which are unique to that person. For that reason, I seriously doubt that as a practical matter, any person will ever be completely predictable. So what I consider the illusion of free will may exist for as long as we are a species.

If intelligence really does give us freedom to act, I still don't see why it would prove the existence of a soul. Consciousness is not exactly a solved problem right now. In fact, it may be close to the truth to say we have no idea where it comes from. So it is a bit premature to assume that a supernatural explanation is behind it, especially when there is no evidence of supernature known. We may be (and are) a collection of particles, but a person or a brain is not simply its equivelent weight in atoms. A pile of rocks is not a stone cabin. Things made of more simple things have their own properties beyond those of their components.

[EOTE]

112. "Illusion of free will".

That, I will agree with. But I don't think that free will and the illusion of free will are the same things.

And yes, I understand that consciousness is an extremely complicated subject and we know very little of it as of now. Perhaps as we find out more about it, my opinion on the subject will change.

With regard to the supernatural, I certainly think that a large portion of what we hear regarding the supernatural is pseudoscience. However, I think perhaps a tiny portion of it is simply a way of classifying what we currently don't understand. Most physicists agree that there are more than 4 dimensions, yet we're only capable of observing 4. Perhaps a lot of what is considered supernatural is simply information from one of those dimensions beyond the 4 we know manifesting itself in our physical, observable world.

[tigereye]

174. I really like the way you think!

Wonderful discussion, thought-provoking and engaging. Haven't seen one of these here for quite some time!


:yourock:

[EOTE]

176. Thanks so much.

Perhaps the lounge wasn't the best place for me to post this, but I wasn't sure that GD was either. I don't regret it, though. I think I've been opened to some interesting possibilities and things don't seem quite so non-sensical now. And thanks for your participation.

[tigereye]

178. no, it would have been far nastier in GD - this was nice to see!

sometimes folks only remember how to stomp on other's viewpoints these days, rather than allowing a free-ranging, thoughtful, polite discussion.


It's funny, in my house, I am know seen as the "scientist" in the family, even though my husband is the software guy and I'm more of a social sciences person. This is because he and I have extensive debates about many of the issues in this thread, and it has made me a bit more open-minded, despite my education and training. Often I am the devil's advocate for "science"/ voice of Western reason and it's an interesting change.


thanks for good discussion, look forward to more! Having kids really does make you think about these things.

[Deep13]

196. That's true, unfortunately.

Loungers just have a better sense of humor than GD. :evilgrin:

[tigereye]

209. for the most part, but any thread like this always brings out the materialists

who eschew any form of intangibility! :D I really don't think that "there are no souls" is a very good argument or starting point for a debate on your question.


I've had plenty of practice debating this with my husband, so it's fun to debate from the other side for a change!

[Deep13]

223. Well, I'm a materialist in the philosophical sense of the word.

That is, I'm pretty sure that everything has a natural rather than a supernatural explanation. I'm not a materialist in the common sense of the word. I understand the argument. Since that is the very thing we are discussing, every idea on that matter is contingent on the existence of souls. So any discussion is simply speculation until the existence of souls is established by evidence. I don't think there is anything wrong with that POV, but sometimes it is fun to speculate anyway.

[tigereye]

227. fair enough!

:D

[LanternWaste]

129. A biologivcal means of predestination...

A biological means of predestination... food for me to chew on.

[Deep13]

191. Not really, because that implies that we are being directed...

...to a specific goal. Reality is more chaotic than that. There is no plan or destiny.

[tigereye]

172. the fact that we can't account for or predict everything is what might be seen

as free will. I think it's a very engaging concept and a powerful one. We can still have free will within the constraints of the range of typical human behaviors that you cite.

Average is not what all people aspire to, people are not simply lists of typical behaviors on tables in some insurance guy or researcher's office, there are always outliers, and the feeling of choice is what gives meaning to existence for many people. :shrug:

[Deep13]

192. One could argue that those insurance tables...

...just don't account for everything and are based on an incomplete understanding of how the human mind works. I'm just speculating, of course.

[tigereye]

210. fair enough!

It's just interesting how questions like these always bring out folks with a more materialist bent, and I have certainly debated this from the other side of the question (i.e. is there life after death, how would we know, is everything that is intangible a product of neurological processes, etc, which is the oldest undergrad psych meme ever)

At my house, my husband's answer is that the atheism and academic snobbery ala Dawkins or any of those who decry any form of religious belief as irrational, for example, are simply another form of fundamentalism! ;)

[Deep13]

224. I guess I don't see how that is snobbery.

I actually find Dawkins' approach to be refreshing. If insisting on evidence makes him a snob, then to quote Jane Fonda in the film California Suite, "Thank God there are some of us left." And isn't religious belief, faith despite a lack of evidence, by definition irrational? My understanding has always been that the faithful do not claim that they have evidence for their beliefs, but rather that the nature of their beliefs are such that no evidence is needed. And having read his book, I know he does not claim that all religious beliefs are fundamentalist. His argument rather is that religious belief shields itself from criticism and that condition allows fundamentalism to happen.

Anyway, I've always found the term "materialist" to be a bit disingenuous because it has two meanings and rather counts on people to assume the more common meaning. From a philosophical POV, a materialist is someone who believes or accepts that all things have naturalistic explanations and that there is no supernatural. The universe is made of one kind of stuff--physical--and supernature is not needed to explain anything and that there is no reason to suppose it exists. The more common understanding of the word is a person who only cares about accumulating property and has no care for anything beyond that. It implies a profound selfishness and cold, almost sociopathic thinking. I think religious apologists use that term to be literally true from the philosophical sense, but while conveying the second meaning.

I fully accept that intangible things exist, especially within the realm of emotions and thinking. Morality, love, hate, joy, misery, empathy are intangible things, but we know for a fact that they exist. I just see no reason to assume there is a supernatural explanation for those things.

[tigereye]

226. I think my perception of snobbery comes from the "how could they think

something so foolish" kind of vibe that sometimes issues from his lips/writings.


And I meant the term materialist in the philosophical sense.

[tigereye]

171. I'm not willing to allow what I want to be true to influence what I accept as true.

hmm, some would argue that what you want to be true, does influence not only what you do, what happens to you, and what you believe and accept.

:)

[Lorien]

155. There is such a thing as "free will"; we all make choices

but I don't know what "free will" has to do with the concept of a "soul". A soul is said to be the spirit of a person which can survive beyond the death of their body. Since consciousness does not survive death, then I don't believe that a "soul" can exist. But it has nothing at all to do with free will. I think that you are confusing the concept of a soul with morality.

[EOTE]

158. I explain what "free will" has to do with the concept of a "soul" in my OP.

I'm using the word soul as something that exists outside of our physical selves that helps to determine who we are and the decisions we make. The point is, there's extremely little randomness when one goes down far enough. Scientists can predict behavior of particles all the way down to the quantum mechanical level. To me, in order for free will to exist, randomness must exist as well. If randomness didn't exist, all of our decisions would be set in stone, like a computer. That very well might be the case. However, if free will exists, I've come to the conclusion that it exists outside of our observable, physical world. It has to exist where it's impossible to predetermine any outcome. Einstein once said that he refuses to believe that God plays dice. Well, if free will truly exists, someone has to be playing dice, and somewhere we can't see those dice being thrown.

And we have no idea whether consciousness survives death or not. And I'm not even touching morality here, if souls exist, they can be the cause (or vessel of) good or evil.

[Deep13]

193. Yeah, I don't think the existence of either free will or a soul...

...implies the existence of the other.

[tigereye]

170. predictable to some degree, but overall, no.

[Deep13]

194. But isn't it?

Why do advertisers run these stupid, annoying ads that don't actually tell you anything? It works. Repeat a message enough times and no matter how counterintuitive it is, a predictable portion of the population will accept it and act on it. Why do people listen to Fox? A good percentage of the population is driven by fear and when people are afraid, they become authoritarian. To those people, Fox makes sense despite its obvious lack of factual support.

The fact that humans will believe what we are told even if our own senses and logic disagrees with it means we are probably more predictable that most other mammals.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

63. no one has a soul.

[EOTE]

65. Care to elaborate? NT

[La Lioness Priyanka]

66. i dont believe in souls. for us or animals. nt

[EOTE]

67. I was actually referring to the questions in my OP.

Do you believe in free will? If so, how do you reconcile free will with the lack of a soul?

We know an awful lot about the physical world. We know exactly how particles interact with each other. Considering our bodies are just extremely complex systems of particles, shouldn't that mean all of our actions are predetermined? We can predict things with absolute certainty until we reach the quantum mechanical level. So, is free will only an illusion provided by the randomness of quantum mechanics? Or do we achieve our free will through some other means?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

72. how in any way are free will and souls tied? i believe we evolved in a way

to incorporate empathy, understand action have consequences and this comprises the basis of both our free will and morality.

[EOTE]

79. I thought I explained that in the post you just replied to.

First start thinking about individual cells (which are bodies and brains are composed of). Now, we can predict with remarkable accuracy how those cells behave. They move and act according to laws, not suggestions. We can determine exactly how cells, particles and such behave almost entirely until we get down to the quantum mechanical level. So, in other words, if you don't incorporate something outside of the physical, observable world, humans should behave like computers (perhaps we do) and all of our actions could be predetermined if we had enough information. Either that, or what we believe to be free will is actually just an illusion provided by the randomness of quantum mechanics.

So, I've come to the conclusion that if free will does exist, it has to come from somewhere outside of the physical, observable world. I don't think it's all that ridiculous to believe this as we're only capable observing 4 dimensions and many top physicists believe that there are far more than 4 dimensions in the universe, perhaps 10, 11 or even 20 something as is posited in Superstring theory. Given how little we know about what a thought is, what free will is, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that things like free will exist outside of our observable 4 dimensions, and in my mind, that would fall under the definition of a soul.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

90. No. i disagree with your premise. there a million genetic & environmental combinations

that make our actions unique. doesnt have to do with some pseudoscience.

[EOTE]

93. The laws of physics are certainly not pseudoscience.

And you should know that while all of our actions are certainly unique, that does nothing to suggest that we have free will.

You've avoided my question three times now. Our bodies are composed of particles, all of which behave according to fixed rules. If all particles in the physical world behave according to fixed rules, without exception, that means that the organisms made from those particles would behave according to fixed rules as well. That would negate the possibility of there being free will. Unless, of course, you believe that free will is derived from something outside of the observable, physical world. The world's top physicists believe that there are more than 4 dimensions, I suppose you're far more informed than they are? Is it ridiculous to believe that what gives us free will resides outside of the four dimensions which we can observe? Or would you like to tell Stephen Hawking that he's been barking up the wrong tree the great bulk of his life?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

95. I think while you pretend to present physics, what you are reiterating constantly is pseudoscience

free will doesn't exist outside of psychology, sociology and genetics. it doesn't exist in a made up dimension where our souls exist.

[EOTE]

98. So you're saying that free will doesn't exist?

Because I certainly don't understand how free will can exist in psychology and sociology. Those are fields of study, not concrete in the slightest, so that really doesn't make any sense at all. And I'm really sorry if you're incapable of grasping such subjects, but I assure you not understanding something does not cause it to cease to exist.

And if you would read my OP, you'd know that I don't know whether the soul exists or not. However, I strongly believe that free will requires something outside of the observable, physical world to work. I've explained quite succinctly why I believe that to be the case. You've done absolutely nothing to defend your position.

So, do you have another tautology to present to me or would you like to actually contribute something?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

103. yes, to a degree you are right. this field of pseudoscience is outside my grasp

[EOTE]

106. Brilliant scientific reply there!

You must have spent an awful lot of time on that one, because I'm completely at a loss for my reply. You got me there, Mr. Bohr. I'm stumped.

Edited to add: Perhaps I should lose the ability to use capitalization and construct a coherent sentence. Then maybe I'll understand the brilliance of your replies.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EOTE]

195. To reply to your most recent message: No, you would be wrong.

Are you willing to consider what lies beyond the event horizon junk science as well? Postulations on the existence of a multiverse? Postulations on the ultimate destination of our universe, a big crunch or a big freeze? What happened prior to the big bang? All this is junk science by your definition. It's a good thing that scientists don't think like you do. If they did, you'd be living as an indentured servant right now.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

200. scientific theories are publishable, even ones that are theories.

However pseudo religious nonsense like souls, are not.

[EOTE]

203. Many scientists have published work regarding the soul.

It's just the review process that presents the problem. I'd really suggest making yourself more informed on this issue before sticking your foot in your mouth again.

Whoa: Nix that. There are peer reviewed articles on the soul as well. Lancet good for you?

[tigereye]

208. philosophers have been arguing about the existence of souls for thousands

of years. So all religion is now confined to the realm of pseudoscience? :rofl: C'mon now. Plenty of scientists would disagree with you!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

225. philosophers are not physicists.

[Lorien]

156. You've read enough to have throughly confused yourself

Try reading a bit more-not skimming it-before posting anything further about quantum physics.

[EOTE]

159. I'm barely touching upon quantum physics.

Perhaps you're the one who's confused?

[EOTE]

105. Genetic and environment combinations do not make free will.

People are born with those genetic combinations, they don't get to choose them. So if you're saying that our genes are the sole internal determiner of our actions, then you don't believe in free will at all. And that's fine, I'm just trying to find out what peoples' various beliefs are.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

68. All animals except purebred dogs have souls.

:hide:

(Inside joke. Come back next April Fools Day to find out more.)

[Orrex]

71. I would like to hear how people conclude that humans have souls.

[EOTE]

75. I believe a soul is likely because I believe in free will.

If I didn't believe in free will (and I'm not 100% convinced that free will exists), I'd have very little problem with not believing in a soul.

[Orrex]

141. I made you post that

With my mind.

[joeybee12]

73. Animals do. People don't.

Not sure I buy into the whole idea of a soul, but there is some sort of "energy" within us that I also think is in animals.

[Taverner]

76. Define soul

Where is it?

What does it look like?

What are its properties?

What element(s) is it made of?

[retread]

78. Easy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQU4torUz-Q

[SoxFan]

142. ...

[EOTE]

80. Did you read my OP?

Because I give my definition of a soul in the first couple of lines.

[Taverner]

118. Yes, and such a thing doesn't exist

Or rather, there is no evidence to suggest such a thing exists

[EOTE]

119. There may be no evidence that a soul exists.

But that doesn't mean there aren't things that would suggest a soul exists.

I've found that if one believes in free will, it's hard to discount the existence of a soul. I've explained why in numerous posts in this thread as well as my OP. I'm interested in your take as to how free will and the lack of a soul could coincide. Or do you not believe in free will? Some of the people I've discussed this with, who don't believe in a soul yet claimed to believe in free will, have now discounted their belief in free will. So where do you stand?

[retread]

125. Define free will.

[EOTE]

134. Here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

[retread]

148. In that case, no to existence of a soul and no to existence of free will. n/t

[EOTE]

151. Thank you. NT.

[Taverner]

139. 'Free will' doesn't make sense

Since time and space are temporal - we are too - at least our mind is

[EOTE]

150. What do you mean by temporal?

As in pertaining to time? Are you suggesting that because all the particles of the universe behave according to laws, so must we? I would tend to agree with that. However, it's just what we are currently capable of observing that seems to be governed by these laws. There's so much which we're not capable of observing, perhaps all around us, that might not be governed by such laws. Perhaps that's where we get free will from.

[Taverner]

153. Basically the "mind/body" duality is an illusion

'You' are your brain

Free Will, the idea that you have a choice does not exist. The illusion of free will is a part of that "mind/body" duality illusion. When you make a decision, it's the result of past experiences, memories, and genetic predispositions. In fact, the only way to break that causality is to make a truly random decision - - and even then, the propensity to try random decisions is a learned behavior as well.

[EOTE]

161. Would you consider yourself a fatalist?

Do you believe that history has progressed in the only manner it possibly could have?

I'm still not quite sure where you stand. First you say that free will doesn't exist, but then you say that one has the possibility to make a truly random decision. The lack of free will suggests that there aren't really any decisions, only actions.

[Taverner]

165. No - because there is chaos in the movement of sub-atomic particles

Causing changes in unforseen ways.

As per the random decision - I do not know if abandoning your previous way of thinking in order to do something random is, in fact, free will or not. But I know any other decision you make will be made up of many things out of your control.

[EOTE]

167. I've thought about that as well.

It's only at the quantum mechanical level that randomness truly exists. Or at least that's what we currently believe. It could be that in time we realize that even that's not truly random.

But yes, I see your point there. It just seems kind of clumsy to me that free will is based upon nothing more than the randomness of quanta. But it's one of the few scenarios that actually makes sense.

[tigereye]

177. hmm after thinking a bit I'm not sure a soul and free will are related

I'll have to think about this a bit more.

Although many philosophers through the years have raised that very question with a variety of answers.

[pink-o]

81. The only diffs between humans and most other life forms:

Humans have:

Big Brains.

Verbal Language, which supersedes instincts.

Hormones which translate into complex emotions but are totally physically based and part of our biochemistry.

And we're finding out that other life-forms do communicate verbally, so that's not even exclusive to us.

Sorry, we're not special, we have no manifest destiny, no Creator made us in his or her own image and we're not intelligently designed. If there was a God, wouldn't his most exalted life form be a bird? Those guys can fly, their brains are pretty large and they can survive on any kind of food the planet has to offer. We're so badly put together, we can actually die eating a sandwich.

So I think what we mistake for being a soul is merely our survival instincts being manifested through the filter of a brain that tells us we're superior. Well, my hormones deserted me about 2 years ago, and with the lack of estrogen my brain realizes how humble humanity really is!

[EOTE]

84. So, do we have free will? Do other animals have free will?

How does one get free will by only incorporating the physical world when all particles in the physical world behave according to laws rather than suggestions?

[pink-o]

123. I am the first one to admit to not knowing our origins or our purpose.

But I don't instantly assume some supernatural being must've put us here, since no other explanation makes sense to my limited powers of perception. Looking at our history and pre-history, humans react to stimulus, our most profound thoughts and conclusions come from our brain chemistry and hormonal levels. We evolved fighting for survival, just like all life forms on this planet: why would we have something they don't? Our modern thoughts and emotions can be traced back to the same instincts that made us hunt for food, mate with each other and battle the elements so that the first two things could be possible.

I personally think Free Will is a subjective concept. Seratonin makes me happy when I run. I make decisions differently when I'm calm than when I feel threatened. Sometimes I crave certain foods, other times I can't even face the thought of eating, and every once in awhile I just gotta have sex, whereas most of the time it's under control.

Is that free will, or just my biochemistry being stimulated by environmental sources?

[EOTE]

130. I said nothing of a supernatural being other than I think it's likely god doesn't exist.

I definitely don't believe that the concept of a soul necessarily have anything to do with a god. And I'm not trying to create a god of the gaps here, my mind is naturally inquisitive, so I'm rather interested in which of the different possibilities is the most likely.

As for why we would have something that other animals don't have, I believe that could be the same reason we have opposable thumbs and others don't. Why we have the most developed brain and others don't.

I hink that free will might be subjective as well, but it seems to me that you're suggesting that free will might not actually be free. If that's what you believe, I can understand why you wouldn't believe in a soul. I've thought about all the different possibilities and none of them truly make sense to me. Perhaps the most logical conclusion for me to come to is that true free will doesn't exist. I just have a very hard time coming to terms with that.

[pink-o]

152. The one thing I didn't qualify was this: we may only be big-brained apes

beholdened to hormones and unnaturally manifested survival instincts BUT....that does not negate the love we feel, the compassion, the deep emotional attachments we have for each other, nor the thoughtful decisions we made, nor the conclusions we draw with the limited information we have, nor the flashes of brilliance that have advanced us scientifically, nor the beautiful art and music born of human creativity.

I've had copious arguments with a friend of faith re this subject, and we've come to this agreement: No matter what you believe (or not) the objective of life is the same: Be good to yourself and others, live each day as if it is your last, give freely of yourself in love and compassion. Because we'll never really understand why we're here, but in the end it doesn't affect how we use the life we've been given.

So call it Free Will, call it biochemical reaction, ultimately it doesn't matter. As long as we follow our inner guide, we can name it whatever we want.

[EOTE]

181. I can't argue with that objective.

And perhaps there is no meaning of life (I'd concede that there's probably not and we're here by cosmic accident).

I know there's certainly many driving factors in our behavior, our biology chief amongst them. What I'd like to know, however, is whether we have ANY free will whatsoever, or if we're powerless to overcome biology and environment. If that's the case, it certainly makes things a lot simpler.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EOTE]

85. Could you clarify?

Are you suggesting that humans have individual souls, but other animals have more of a collective soul?

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EOTE]

87. Thanks for the recommendation, I'll have to check that out. NT.

[Fire Walk With Me]

91. Depends upon your definition of "soul".

Up and down the scale we go, until learning to apply the resources of the auspicious human form.

[EOTE]

92. How about the definition that I used in my OP? NT

[Fire Walk With Me]

94. Sorry, didn't read it. Most folks in the Lounge are only after humor opportunities,

not genuine discussion. Please see this as it is generally on-topic, and reinforces my first post in this thread.

http://2012basics.blogspot.com/2010/02/point-by-point-on-my-earlier.html

[EOTE]

99. I still don't quite see how that relates to the OP. NT.

[Fire Walk With Me]

100. Okay

:hi:

[Fire Walk With Me]

96. Everything is energy. Energy may work to become more complex.

If not, it suffers from entropy.

[Rhiannon12866]

104. #3

If my dog doesn't have a soul, then nobody does... :loveya:

[EOTE]

107. Well, #2 might apply for you as well then.

The more I think about it, the more I think of the possibility that creatures with sentience developed a soul sometime along the course of their evolution.

Anyway, that's quite a cute pup. What kind is it?

[Rhiannon12866]

113. Well, I'm the sort that picks up spiders and carries them outside...

So I think I'm definitely #3. ;)

And Jack's a Brussels Griffon, an unusual breed, but also rescue. Previously, I've adopted senior dogs, but Jack found me at five months. He just turned four, and is quite the personality. :D

Jack :loveya:

[EOTE]

115. I've never heard of that breed before.

He's definitely a cutie. Looks like he has rather fine, soft hair too. I had a Lhasa and she was the best dog I could have ever asked for. They definitely know love.

I don't have a dog anymore, but I do have a daughter. She'll be turning 4 next month and she's the light of our lives. Perhaps that's why I've been thinking about this stuff so much lately.

[Rhiannon12866]

122. Most people haven't, but I've had two, both rescue.

I wish I had a nickle for everytime somebody asked me "What kind of dog is that?!" I usually refer to the movie "As Good As It Gets," since that's usually the only time anyone's seen one. Besides my two, I've only seen one other in real life... :)

Verdell:


Congratulations on your daughter. I used to work with kids and four is a wonderful age. And she'd probably enjoy growing up with a dog. I'd recommend one a little bigger than mine, though. :hi:

[EOTE]

131. It is a wonderful age.

Every day I'm absolutely amazed at how incredibly smart she is. She's had a true sense of humor since before she turned 1. And yes, I'm quite sure she'd love to have a puppy, she loves animals of all kinds. Right now we've got a very lazy cat and that's about as much as we can take care of at the moment. I don't feel too guilty though because we spend a lot of time at her cousins, her grandparents and other places where she, can play with a multitude of animals. If we get a real house, we'll definitely have a dog to go along with it.

I loved "As Good as it Gets", I knew I had seen a similar dog once. The face seems kind of similar to Lhasas, Shih Tzus and Pekinese, those are my favorites. I'm a bit of a lap dog kinda guy. I just love their energy and I love how they can go crazy around the house without causing too much damage.

[Rhiannon12866]

144. Children that age are learning things so quickly, it's amazing.

They can constantly surprise you with the things that they can understand. It's also a great age because they are still quite open to everything, and they're still pretty trusting. They still look up to you, which is a nice feeling. I worked with a class that was mostly comprised of four-year-olds and I just loved them. It was years ago, when I was just out of college, but I still remember almost all of their names... :)

My vet's wife, who loves small dogs, gets a real kick out of mine, also loves that movie, said that she was surprised that the breed didn't take off because the movie was so popular. But that wouldn't have been good because Brussels Griffons, like Dalmatians when that breed became so popular, aren't the right dog for everyone. :(

First of all, they're really small, not necessarily good with little kids, and can be one-person dogs. My other Brussels Griffon, Meneken, who had belonged to an elderly lady who died, was my little velcro dog, went with me everywhere and had some issues with men. Also, he was only eight pounds and I adopted him at age nine. ;(

Jack, on the other hand, is very outgoing, loves everybody, so I'm fortunate with him. He was fostered at the local Animal Emergency Clinic, so he got used to all kinds of people and animals, and he has few issues. He's also quite large for his breed, tips the scale at 20 lbs... Yikes! :wow:

Meneken :loveya:

[EOTE]

189. Every day I'm amazed at what my daughter learns.

She just spent a few weeks with my folks in California visiting many of her relatives. We got a new bed for her while she was away because her previous one broke while she was jumping on it. So, we told her that we had a surprise waiting for her and she was super excited the whole week. So, on the taxi ride home from the airport, she says to my mom "I think I know what my surprise is." My mom asks her what she thinks it is and she says "I think they got me a bed, I was naughty and broke mine by jumping on it." My jaw dropped when my mom relayed that story to me. We weren't upset with her when she broke it, but she seemed really disappointed in herself. We wanted it to be a surprise, but she's too clever for us. One game she really loves to play with both myself and my dad is role reversal. She'll be dad (or Pa as she calls my dad) and we'll be Hannah. Sometimes we'll get out of character and she'll have to correct us. So, she was playing this game with my my dad when she got to meet some of her cousins for the first time. She ran up to them and said "Hi! I'm pa! And this is Hannah, she's my... umm... ummm....". It became clear that she didn't quite know what she was in relation to my dad, so she thought about it for another few seconds and said "She's my baby!" She's become the Queen of knock-knock jokes as of late and will remember just about every one that she hears.

We'll be seeing Toy Story 3 for Father's Day and I can't wait. The last Disney film we saw together was "The Princess and the Frog" and it was the first movie she actually saw in a theater (though we've gone to drive-ins a few times). Just seeing her face light up and her feet tapping during the songs was worth the price of admission alone. She definitely has an appreciation for art and musicals (the sound track to Mama Mia has been her favorite music since she was about 1 year old).

I agree with what you say about dog breeds, they're really not something that should become trendy. Following a trend is just about the worst reason to get a dog ever. Hannah has been learning how to be around animals big and small for a long time, so when the time comes, I think we'll be getting a lap dog, maybe another Lhasa or maybe something like a Terrier. Perhaps a Brussels Griffons if I learn up a bit more on them. Yours has an incredibly distinct and cute face, she'd probably melt if she saw it.

[Rhiannon12866]

222. Wow!

Hannah sounds like an incredibly precocious kid! She probably learns a lot from spending time with adults, so has learned to keep up with them... ;)

My mother said that I was like that when I was young, since I was first, on both sides of the family, so spent time with grandparents, aunts, uncles, all adults, so those were my role models. Hannah is definitely starting out with an advantage. :)

But she's got it all over me when it comes to movies. The first movie I saw in the theater was Cinderella, which my mother took me on a city bus to see. I was four. And she said that I cried through the whole thing, wanted to go home, because I was afraid of the cat, LOL. :blush: I'm guessing that you'll have a much better time. :D

And children are good with animals when they're taught to be, so Hannah will no doubt learn how to treat them from you. My friend has a little girl who is the only "sibling" to three cats and three dogs. She learned how to interact with them early on, and love them from a very early age. My little Meneken wasn't okay with everyone, but he was fine with little Lynne Marie. She was only three when I got him, and she just loved him, and would ask to hold him, so I'd tell her to sit down and would put him on her lap. They were just fine. :)

Enjoy the movie and Happy Father's Day! You sound like a terrific one... :hi:

[Mad_Dem_X]

109. I firmly believe that dogs have souls

Cats and other creatures, I'm not so sure. (Apologies to DU cat lovers!)

[EOTE]

135. I'm beginning to think so too.

And my reasons are mostly subjective. You spend a good amount of time with a dog and you know they care about far more than just themselves.

[In_The_Wind]

120. I believe they do.

But then ~ I believe that the soul returns to earth over and over again ~ sometimes in human form
other times who knows what form the soul make take.

[EOTE]

137. I don't think any of that is terribly unbelievable.

Once you believe in the soul, it's not that great of a leap to assume that soul might be eternal and takes different forms. I think one of the qualities of a soul that most anyone can agree upon is that the soul exists outside of what we consider to be the physical world. Since we know almost nothing about what exists outside of the four observable dimensions, it would amount to hubris to think we can impose limitations on what it can do.

[GSLevel9]

121. great article, very thought provoking.

IMHO, I believe that animals that have strong connections with humans GAIN some sort of an energy... some sort of a extra-consciousness that is not present in the feral animals.

So, I believe that a human GIVES something to the animal which changes the animal. The love or whatever it is... may create the "Soul"??

The Dingo on the Australian plain may not have this same "energy" that the Poodle does...

[EOTE]

133. Thanks. And thanks for your opinion.

A poster beneath your post, LanternWaste, made a similar comment through a passage from C.S. Lewis where he suggested that animals could, in a sense, gain a soul through their interactions with humans.
I'm not sure I believe that, perhaps because I think it would suggest that humans are more exceptional than I give them credit for, but it's certainly an interesting thought.

However, I do believe that creatures have varying degrees of free will. I'm guessing the Poodle has more free will than the Dingo on the Australian plain. Perhaps it's due to the Poodle's interactions with humans that give it that extra degree of free will.

[pitohui]

124. a few people and a few animals have souls

if by "soul" you mean this invisible entity that is something separate from your body, i think this is a fairly rare supernatural thing

most people when they're gone they're gone and most animals when they're gone they're gone

however, there have been some odd experiences that suggest that something partial sometimes survives if only for a brief moment

i'm not sure if i want to put these experiences forward to the mockery of the masses, but if you had a parrot that passed away and later, your new parrot, just once, whispered a phrase that the old bird used to like...it suggests that "something" invisible communicated itself from the "soul" of the old parrot, to let you know that even in death, you were remembered

i also had an experience where a bird died in my hands and i could feel the passage of his life from his body

so, yes, animals CAN have souls, but i do not think souls are immortal or that they retain more than a small amt of information, they are like the flash of light you see from a falling star, it does not make us little gods that we as human have souls, it's just one of those mysteries

a soul is a bittersweet thing, a reminder to appreciate what we have while we have it

obv. just my opinion and experiences

[EOTE]

132. Thank you for your take on this.

It seems that so little is known about this kind of thing, I love hearing stories like yours.

[LanternWaste]

128. CS Lewis wrote something to this effect...

CS Lewis wrote something to this effect...

All things being equal, the dumb beasts are just that-- dumb beasts. That only humans are imparted with a soul from birth.

But bring an animal to human and let that human domesticate it, and the result is humanity actually ennobling the creature, adding to the animal's sum total by means of human care, human love and human compassion. That in effect, humans can bring an animal to a higher plane which then allows the birth of a soul in that animal. We bring unimagined possibilities to the creature-- possibilities never in the creature's possibility of awareness until we impart to them some of ourselves.

I'd like to do his thought better justice, but my talents lie neither in thought nor in prose. But if it did pique your interest, he dedicates a chapter to this very subject in his book, Mere Christianity.

[EOTE]

136. That's a very interesting passage.

I'm not sure I believe it, it seems like Lewis put more stock into Human exceptionalism than I do. However, it does seem to jibe with the enormous changes that happen to animals when they become domesticated.

[hayu_lol]

140. The probable answer to all these questions...

can be found in the study of Shinto.

[UndertheOcean]

146. no n/t

[A-Schwarzenegger]

147. I'm of a mixed mind.

:*

[Lorien]

154. If human animals have souls then certainly other species do as well

Dogs, cats, raccoons, elephants, horses, parrots...most animals experience emotions like love, fear, trust, grief. I personally don't believe in the concept of a "soul" for anyone, but emotionally there is really nothing that separates us from most animals-except greed and our suicidal tendencies.

[Lorien]

157. Just curious; how old are you?

[EOTE]

160. Just curious. Why?

What does my age have to do with this conversation?

[alarimer]

173. No, and neither do we.

There is no such thing as a "soul". Whatever we refer to as a soul is simply the product of the brain.

[EOTE]

175. So, do we have free will?

And if we do, how do you mesh free will which involves randomness against a universe where order rules?

[GoneOffShore]

179. Why do you say that "order rules" in the universe?

[EOTE]

180. Because it does.

If you look at things in a large scale, that may not seem so, but the further we dig down, the more that we realize that things behave in accordance to fixed rules. It isn't until we reach the quantum level that scientists find things don't act entirely predictable.

[GoneOffShore]

182. You're making an unsupported assertion.

I suggest you read up on chaos theory.




:hi:

[EOTE]

184. I'm quite familiar with chaos theory.

And guess what, chaos theory still involves order. The "chaos" in chaos theory has to do with how dynamic systems react to small changes in initial conditions. If the initial conditions don't change, there's no chaos. You might know that in popular dialog, chaos theory is referred to as "The Butterfly Effect"? Well, if that butterfly was predetermined to flap its wings at that exact moment, there's really no chaos at all, is there?

[GoneOffShore]

185. You're asserting that the butterfly was predetermined to flap its wings.

Where does that assertion come from, please?

[EOTE]

187. Saying "what if" is not the same as asserting something.

What I'm saying is, given the exact same set of initial circumstances, in a deterministic system, everything will play out exactly the same. Chaos theory suggests that by changing the initial circumstances, even just a tiny bit, a deterministic system will provide an unpredictable outcome. That's not really chaos at all, it just means we're incapable of measuring how those changes in initial circumstances effect the ultimate outcome.

[GoneOffShore]

188. Interesting thought -

But I think you're way too hung up on the whole "free will" canard and looking for some sort of meaning where there is none.

Thanks for playing - There are no parting gifts.

:hi:

[EOTE]

190. Either free will exists or it doesn't.

I'm not even sure which scenario is more likely. If free will doesn't exist, there's no logical disconnect in my head, everything makes sense. However, I don't want that to be the case. When I open myself to the possibility that free will does exist, things become a hell of a lot more complicated in my mind. So I'd like to know, if I'm to assume that free will does exist, how do I reconcile that with what I already know. I don't know how that can be considered a canard.

[GoneOffShore]

197. Sometimes staring too hard into your navel means you just find the lint.

And I'm beginning to think that there's a lot of lint in this thread.

Now go outside.


:eyes:

[EOTE]

198. That's why I choose to set my gaze elsewhere. NT

[EOTE]

201. Why would you choose to participate in a thread that's so filled with lint?

I'm interested in having an open an honest discussion about the issues I raise in my OP. I've been doing that quite successfully. If you're not capable of having an honest discussion you can simply not participate, but no reason to fuck it up for the rest of us.

[GoneOffShore]

202. I was initially interested, but you're doing the Ouroboros now.

So I'm done.

:boring:


I'm going to go look at kitty pictures now.

[EOTE]

204. Kitty pictures seem like far more your level anyway.

So enjoy.

[GoneOffShore]

205. ...

:boring:

[EOTE]

206. Still enjoying all that lint, huh?

I guess the kitty pictures got boring and you decided to check in on the adults?

[ColesCountyDem]

186. Looking into these eyes every day, I have to say 'yes'.

I can't imagine that this little guy isn't more than the sum of his body parts.



:)

[glinda]

207. Yes. Spirits and souls. Also "group sprits/souls" for each species.

[EOTE]

212. I'm very interested in the concept of group souls.

I guess that could relate to Jung's concept of the collective unconscious. It could also go a way toward explaining the things we don't yet understand regarding instinct. Rather interesting.

[glinda]

228. Yes. Keep following that thought.

[tester2010]

215. No, they don't.

No, they don't.

[LeftyMom]

216. Souls are mystical nonsense. Humans are animals.

[UTUSN]

218. Yes, as much as WE do!1 n/t

[cherish44]

219. Yeah I think animals have souls

and I've seen ghosts of animals. And before you think it was just my mind, I was in the company of other people who saw the same damn ghost. So it was a mind fuck, it was three people having the exact same mind fuck at the exact same time, out of the blue, like. And none of us are particularly religious or even believed in that stuff before this happened.

[cherish44]

221. I've realized you're not going to convince an atheist that souls exist

I tend to believe there are things our tiny human brains can't comprehend so I'm open to the existence of souls, other dimensions and things that our beyond our human capability of sensing. But I don't bother arguing about it, we all have free will to believe what we want. So I just believe what I believe and let others do their thang....to quote John Lennon "Whatever gets you through the night..."

[glinda]

230. I think of souls/spirits as energy.

[Sky Masterson]

229. I don't believe souls exist in any creature.

.