Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Could Animals Have A Soul?
96 Answers
The house must have been coming down with mice. The new traps have killed six in only two days.
If animals do have a soul is it fair to dispatch them unshriven from this world?
If animals do have a soul is it fair to dispatch them unshriven from this world?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sandyRoe. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
True -- which establishes the electrical nature of thought -- but only with a special interface - which establishes the comparative weakness of it.
A lot of Naomi's arguments seem to be based on a variation of appeals to ignorance -- we don't know, therefore we can't rule anything out, so stop trying. It's never been fully established here what "don't know" means, precisely. In the past I've noticed that "not knowing" seems to cover any level of knowledge that isn't 100% certain. In turn this rules out all Scientific knowledge now and for all time, as technically nothing in Science is ever 100% certain. But there comes a point where the level of doubt is insignificant, and therefore the model being tested, so far as it goes, can be assumed true, at least until a better model comes along.
It also was based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of "Absence of Evidence". This applies specifically to cases where there has been no investigation of any kind, or at least no investigation that is extensive enough to be able to draw any conclusions from it. In many of the topic that have been debated, there is in fact a great deal of evidence, and most of it is negative. This, then, is not absence of evidence, but absence of "positive evidence". If such positive evidence for some theory is absent, then there is very strong evidence that the theory is incorrect.
That's an aside, and something that I hope you will read, Naomi, even though you probably will not reply to it. In the case at hand it applies in the following way: the brain has been examined extensively (though not completely, there is much more still to do) and no signs either of the electrical signals which we can identify as "thought" propagating independently of the brain (or some highly conductive wire attached to it), nor of there being anything else that can propagate that would provide a mechanism for telepathic thought. Indeed, because the electrical signals are enough to be interpreted as thoughts in cases studied so far, that is both strong evidence that thoughts are physically embodied by electrical signals, and that nothing else is necessary. Equally, experiments designed to seek such "psi phenomena" have so far found nothing. Therefore, there is a lot of negative evidence, or absence of positive evidence.
So, there is no evidence of anything else going on beyond a (complicated!) electrochemical process, and therefore no reason to expect that some other process will be discovered in the future.
A lot of Naomi's arguments seem to be based on a variation of appeals to ignorance -- we don't know, therefore we can't rule anything out, so stop trying. It's never been fully established here what "don't know" means, precisely. In the past I've noticed that "not knowing" seems to cover any level of knowledge that isn't 100% certain. In turn this rules out all Scientific knowledge now and for all time, as technically nothing in Science is ever 100% certain. But there comes a point where the level of doubt is insignificant, and therefore the model being tested, so far as it goes, can be assumed true, at least until a better model comes along.
It also was based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of "Absence of Evidence". This applies specifically to cases where there has been no investigation of any kind, or at least no investigation that is extensive enough to be able to draw any conclusions from it. In many of the topic that have been debated, there is in fact a great deal of evidence, and most of it is negative. This, then, is not absence of evidence, but absence of "positive evidence". If such positive evidence for some theory is absent, then there is very strong evidence that the theory is incorrect.
That's an aside, and something that I hope you will read, Naomi, even though you probably will not reply to it. In the case at hand it applies in the following way: the brain has been examined extensively (though not completely, there is much more still to do) and no signs either of the electrical signals which we can identify as "thought" propagating independently of the brain (or some highly conductive wire attached to it), nor of there being anything else that can propagate that would provide a mechanism for telepathic thought. Indeed, because the electrical signals are enough to be interpreted as thoughts in cases studied so far, that is both strong evidence that thoughts are physically embodied by electrical signals, and that nothing else is necessary. Equally, experiments designed to seek such "psi phenomena" have so far found nothing. Therefore, there is a lot of negative evidence, or absence of positive evidence.
So, there is no evidence of anything else going on beyond a (complicated!) electrochemical process, and therefore no reason to expect that some other process will be discovered in the future.
Jim the reason a said surely, is that neural activity is not purely electrical as in electronics but electrochemical as in a wave of change of ion concentration passing along a neuron. As far as is known the miniscule electromagnetic changes are not detected by neighbouring neurons ie. there is not a kind of inductance as in electricity.
@Naomi - Thing is, we can measure the effects of thought - the brainwaves caused by electrochemical reactions within the neurons and synapses that comprise the brain, creating electrical impulses.
So they are like radiowaves in that context, they have a measurable frequency on the EM spectrum. Indeed, we can even assign different EM frequencies to different types of thought, using EEG measurements, and more recently we have even developed technologies that allow us to "see" thoughts propagate across regions of the brain - "fMRI".
Where thought and brainwaves differ from radiowaves though is in the power of the transmitter - whereas radiowaves can disseminate across vast distances in a vacuum, the EM potential and the EM fields generated through the activity of the brain are teeny-tiny in comparison. The EM fields of the Earth are barely sufficient to move a compass needle - brainwaves are a millionth that potential.
So if we are to hypothetically accept the notion of a soul as being a kind of coherent assembly of those random abstract thoughts, ego and memories that is you, how can that coherence be maintained without the electrochemical medium that sustains it within the brain? The "energy" required to maintain that coherence, millisecond after millisecond, for an eternity, is absent without a physical medium in which to sustain it.
This is what I have a problem with - but I agree, it is a fascinating topic for conversation, and the whole science surrounding thoughts and senses, and nervous impulses is endlessly interesting.
So they are like radiowaves in that context, they have a measurable frequency on the EM spectrum. Indeed, we can even assign different EM frequencies to different types of thought, using EEG measurements, and more recently we have even developed technologies that allow us to "see" thoughts propagate across regions of the brain - "fMRI".
Where thought and brainwaves differ from radiowaves though is in the power of the transmitter - whereas radiowaves can disseminate across vast distances in a vacuum, the EM potential and the EM fields generated through the activity of the brain are teeny-tiny in comparison. The EM fields of the Earth are barely sufficient to move a compass needle - brainwaves are a millionth that potential.
So if we are to hypothetically accept the notion of a soul as being a kind of coherent assembly of those random abstract thoughts, ego and memories that is you, how can that coherence be maintained without the electrochemical medium that sustains it within the brain? The "energy" required to maintain that coherence, millisecond after millisecond, for an eternity, is absent without a physical medium in which to sustain it.
This is what I have a problem with - but I agree, it is a fascinating topic for conversation, and the whole science surrounding thoughts and senses, and nervous impulses is endlessly interesting.
LG, //how can that coherence be maintained without the electrochemical medium that sustains it within the brain? The "energy" required to maintain that coherence, millisecond after millisecond, for an eternity, is absent without a physical medium in which to sustain it.//
No idea – and I'm not sure about 'eternity' either - but for arguments sake, since you and I agree that we don’t know what a thought actually consists of, and since we can't examine it, any 'energy' it may contain therefore cannot be measured, how can we say that the energy required to maintain coherence doesn’t exist independently within it?
No idea – and I'm not sure about 'eternity' either - but for arguments sake, since you and I agree that we don’t know what a thought actually consists of, and since we can't examine it, any 'energy' it may contain therefore cannot be measured, how can we say that the energy required to maintain coherence doesn’t exist independently within it?
"No idea – and I'm not sure about 'eternity' either - but for arguments sake, since you and I agree that we don’t know what a thought actually consists of, and since we can't examine it, any 'energy' it may contain therefore cannot be measured, how can we say that the energy required to maintain coherence doesn’t exist independently within it?"
Well, I did not say we cannot measure the energy of a thought - we can, since we can measure what thought creates, which is brainwaves which in turn consists of synaptic firings between neurons.
So I do not agree that thought consists of some quantity of energy or some type of energy that is immeasurable - Just that we do not know how the abstract content of a thought process is generated.It is obviously qualitatively different to the process of direct stimulus from pain or sensory receptors, but I see nothing to suggest that it is quantitatively different.
Those of you that believe in such a thing as a soul must have some image, some model, of that soul - so Naomi, does that statement of yours above therefore mean you believe a soul to be finite - to have a lifespan of its own? If so, what kind of lifespan do you imagine that might be? Are we talking seconds, hours, months, years, decades, or greater?
Well, I did not say we cannot measure the energy of a thought - we can, since we can measure what thought creates, which is brainwaves which in turn consists of synaptic firings between neurons.
So I do not agree that thought consists of some quantity of energy or some type of energy that is immeasurable - Just that we do not know how the abstract content of a thought process is generated.It is obviously qualitatively different to the process of direct stimulus from pain or sensory receptors, but I see nothing to suggest that it is quantitatively different.
Those of you that believe in such a thing as a soul must have some image, some model, of that soul - so Naomi, does that statement of yours above therefore mean you believe a soul to be finite - to have a lifespan of its own? If so, what kind of lifespan do you imagine that might be? Are we talking seconds, hours, months, years, decades, or greater?
LG, I wouldn't presume to say 'I know'. I don't. I simply know that energy cannot be destroyed, so therefore wonder what becomes of that energy not only once the brain ceases to function, but whilst the brain is still functioning.
Got to go. This is a worthwhile cause and one I could happily spend a long time discussing - but I'm getting nothing done here today. See you later. :o)
Got to go. This is a worthwhile cause and one I could happily spend a long time discussing - but I'm getting nothing done here today. See you later. :o)
Well I know who is the Drunken Goat!
Pixie, ants have been likened to neurons, individually they do go through processes (instinct, what to do next etc) but only really work when they connect together (like ants in a colony). No single ant controls the colony.
I imagine this collective inteligence of our neurons is what makes our "souls" all tick and trundle along in our individual ways.
Pixie, ants have been likened to neurons, individually they do go through processes (instinct, what to do next etc) but only really work when they connect together (like ants in a colony). No single ant controls the colony.
I imagine this collective inteligence of our neurons is what makes our "souls" all tick and trundle along in our individual ways.
Early in this thread Old Geezer remarked that if animals have no concept of right or wrong then they don't need forgiveness for their sins. If they don't need forgiving then they hardly need blessed.
If they were mice that believed in reincarnation then I may have inadvertently freed them from a particularly unpleasant episode in the endless, repetitious, cycle of birth, life, and death.
If they were mice that believed in reincarnation then I may have inadvertently freed them from a particularly unpleasant episode in the endless, repetitious, cycle of birth, life, and death.
Latest Posts
How it Works13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
ChatterBank69 mins ago
Power Of Social Media Put To Good Use
News82 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.