Humans: Disembodied Spirit or An Animal?

[Sunstone]

ALTOONA, PA, United States (UPI) -- U.S. scientists say a father`s scent may delay the onset of sexual maturity in daughters -- part of an evolutionary strategy to prevent inbreeding.


'Biological fathers send out inhibitory chemical signals to their daughters,' said Robert Matchock, assistant professor of psychology at Penn State University`s Altoona Campus. 'In the absence of these signals, girls tend to sexually mature earlier.'


The effect of chemical cues on sexual maturity is common in the animal world, Matchock said, noting when the biological father is removed from rodent families, the daughters tend to mature faster.


Researchers, including Elizabeth Susman, professor of biobehavioral health at Penn State, collected menarcheal data from 1,938 college students. The data included information on factors such as the girls` family size, social environment, and how long the father had been absent.


'Our results indicate that girls without fathers matured approximately three months before girls whose fathers were present,' Matchock said, adding the data seem to suggest a relationship between length of the father`s absence and age of menarche -- the earlier the absence, the earlier the menarche.


The study is detailed in the American Journal of Human Biology.


Copyright 2006 by United Press International





Ever since Descartes, the tendency in the West has been to view humans as being unique from other animals in possessing a soul. Animals, so far as Descartes was concerned, were mere machines. Humans, on the other hand, were essentially or most importantly the possessors of souls.


Yet, modern science daily discovers new things about us and other animals that seem to draw us closer and closer to the notion that we are just one more species of animal. In the above news story, for example, it is discovered that humans behave very much like rodents in one peculiar way.


Is this yet more evidence that humans are not the uniquely disembodied spirits DesCartes imagined, but rather just another species of animal?


Which do you think is more plausible:


Only humans have souls.


All living things have souls.


All things, living or not, have souls.


No things have souls.

 

[doppelganger]

What do you mean by a "soul"? There are so many concepts of what makes up the "soul" it's hard to answer the question. DesCartes seems to have been merely the conceptual awareness of his own being, i.e. self-consciousness, which he then (as usually happens) objectified.

But "soul" talk goes back before Plato. Pythagoras, for example, believed that all living things have "souls" - including plants. Empedocles claimed to have been incarnated as a bush in a past "life" (as well as a bird and a fish).

Is a "soul" just "life"?
Is is self-consciousness?
Sentience?
Magical property of a being that temporarily inhabits a body?
The spirit of dead aliens from hundreds of millions of years ago?

 

[kai]

i put nothing has a soul but then i thought what the .... is a soul anyway so i should have voted other

 

[Willamena]

Yet, modern science daily discovers new things about us and other animals that seem to draw us closer and closer to the notion that we are just one more species of animal. In the above news story, for example, it is discovered that humans behave very much like rodents in one peculiar way.

Is this yet more evidence that humans are not the uniquely disembodied spirits DesCartes imagined, but rather just another species of animal?

"Disembodied spirit" not= "soul", for me. Heck, it doesn't even = spirit, for me.

Through discussions about the spirit/soul on another forum, I have come to think of the soul as something different from the spirit. The soul is the "life" of a thing, or the "life-force" as some call it, whereas the spirit is "self." Neither can "disembody" themselves, in my opinion.

Which do you think is more plausible:
Only humans have souls.
All living things have souls.
All things, living or not, have souls.
No things have souls.

I think it more plausible that only living things have a soul, since soul means "life". Since the poll specifically uses the word "soul," I chose that, "All living things have souls," although I would have worded it, "All living things have a soul."

 

[Random]

Buddhists are going to be obliged to deny the existence of a soul because they define it in terms of the classical conception: an ethereal, immaterial substance which forms the essence of being and consciouness. Their doctrine of Anatta to them means there is no soul and no quintessential self either. So no surprise there...even though I believe Shakyamuni Buddha meant the doctrine to be an understanding of what the soul is through negation, ie. Anatta means what is "not-the-self/not-the-soul". Thus, forms, feelings and ideations are anatta, not-the-self/not-the-soul etc.

Hindu's have the Atman which is synonymous with the immortal unchanging self/soul, the soul's existence is a fundamental tenant of all Abrahamic religions and many Pagans/animists and others may be expected to concieve of the soul as part of everything living at the very least.

Personally, to me in my own experience, the soul may best be understood as a hypostasis of mind and body fuelled by a puressence which is scientifically quantifiable in time. All is energy, as physics has discovered, so surely the body must be the highest expression of soul there is. To deny the soul is nihilism: and nihilism is reductionism, determinism and materialism wrapped up in one morbid, hellish package. This line of thought leads you eventually to a negation of life which is anathema to love, morality and the obvious necessity of continuity.

The orthodox Buddhist view of the soul as non-existent is incorrect and not what Gautama taught at all: Anatman is merely the sang'ha's interpretation of it, though Buddhists won't admit this because they've thrown in with the intellectual mainstream of materialism and reductionism now, so "no soul" keeps them compatible with Science and thus the religion most able to flourish in a future set to be dominated by it.

So the problem with the poll is that it lacks an enlightened presentable view of what the Soul actually is: it just assumes the common idea of it and offers a yay or nay to that. This won't lead us anywhere and the whole thing is pointless.

 

[Engyo]

Godlike has a point, but he missed one bit: The no-self doctrine is applied to the idea of an "eternal unchanging" soul; the doctrine of impermanence requires that.

As long as one isn't going to claim that the soul is eternal and unchanging, then we can surely talk about souls, selves, and all of the rest. Obviously there is something there; if there weren't then we wouldn't be discussing it at all. The Buddhist argument is with the concept of "eternal and unchanging", not with the concept of a soul in any shape or form.

 

[Random]

Godlike has a point, but he missed one bit: The no-self doctrine is applied to the idea of an "eternal unchanging" soul; the doctrine of impermanence requires that.

As long as one isn't going to claim that the soul is eternal and unchanging, then we can surely talk about souls, selves, and all of the rest. Obviously there is something there; if there weren't then we wouldn't be discussing it at all. The Buddhist argument is with the concept of "eternal and unchanging", not with the concept of a soul in any shape or form.

I do not believe in unchanging self-soul, as the bodily aspect obviously perishes and by rebirth the psyche is unified with and in another form. This is a complex matter, because the soul must be eternal is some respect: this from my point of view makes the soul eternally changing, which is a different almost newish idea I'll admit. Should we deny the immutablility of the soul? I have never discussed this with anyone though I understand the implications of it.

Still, it's nice to hear from a Buddhist who doesn't object to the common spiritual jargon when discussing the miracle of our being. Thanks, Engyo! :clap

 

[Ody]

I haven't done enough thought into the matter.

 

[gnomon]

Animals.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

While I won't debate over what exactly is "the soul", One of the most telling proofs of it's existence in my opinion is the legal system. From Hank Hanengraaff's book "Resurrection":
"from a legal prospective, if human beings were merely material, they could not be held accountable this year for a crime committed last year, simply because physical identity changes over time. We are not the same people today that we were yesterday. Everyday we lose multiplied millions of microscopic particles-in fact, every seven years, virtually every part of our material anatomy changes, apart from aspects of our neurological system. Therefore, from a purely material perspective, 'the self who did the crime in the past is not literally the same self who is present at the time of punishment'"(Habermas and Moreland, "Buyond Death", 49)

If this is indeed true, does the justice system practice a religious belief?

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[nutshell]

ALTOONA, PA, United States (UPI) -- U.S. scientists say a father`s scent may delay the onset of sexual maturity in daughters -- part of an evolutionary strategy to prevent inbreeding.


'Biological fathers send out inhibitory chemical signals to their daughters,' said Robert Matchock, assistant professor of psychology at Penn State University`s Altoona Campus. 'In the absence of these signals, girls tend to sexually mature earlier.'


The effect of chemical cues on sexual maturity is common in the animal world, Matchock said, noting when the biological father is removed from rodent families, the daughters tend to mature faster.


Researchers, including Elizabeth Susman, professor of biobehavioral health at Penn State, collected menarcheal data from 1,938 college students. The data included information on factors such as the girls` family size, social environment, and how long the father had been absent.


'Our results indicate that girls without fathers matured approximately three months before girls whose fathers were present,' Matchock said, adding the data seem to suggest a relationship between length of the father`s absence and age of menarche -- the earlier the absence, the earlier the menarche.


The study is detailed in the American Journal of Human Biology.


Copyright 2006 by United Press International





Ever since Descartes, the tendency in the West has been to view humans as being unique from other animals in possessing a soul. Animals, so far as Descartes was concerned, were mere machines. Humans, on the other hand, were essentially or most importantly the possessors of souls.


Yet, modern science daily discovers new things about us and other animals that seem to draw us closer and closer to the notion that we are just one more species of animal. In the above news story, for example, it is discovered that humans behave very much like rodents in one peculiar way.


Is this yet more evidence that humans are not the uniquely disembodied spirits DesCartes imagined, but rather just another species of animal?


Which do you think is more plausible:


Only humans have souls.


All living things have souls.


All things, living or not, have souls.


No things have souls.

I'm sorry. Maybe I missed something, but where is the link between girls sexually maturing earlier and the absence of chemical cues because the father isn't there? I always assumed this was a pyschological effect - not a chemical one, but I'd be interested in seeing more of the research.

And for the question: I believe animals have souls too.

 

[nutshell]

While I won't debate over what exactly is "the soul", One of the most telling proofs of it's existence in my opinion is the legal system. From Hank Hanengraaff's book "Resurrection":
"from a legal prospective, if human beings were merely material, they could not be held accountable this year for a crime committed last year, simply because physical identity changes over time. We are not the same people today that we were yesterday. Everyday we lose multiplied millions of microscopic particles-in fact, every seven years, virtually every part of our material anatomy changes, apart from aspects of our neurological system. Therefore, from a purely material perspective, 'the self who did the crime in the past is not literally the same self who is present at the time of punishment'"(Habermas and Moreland, "Buyond Death", 49)

If this is indeed true, does the justice system practice a religious belief?

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

I believe this reasoning is flawed. While it may be true that the literal physical self is renewed every seven years...the result is not a new unique physical being, but a near perfect copy of what there was before. The continous dying and copying of cells does not a new self create. The cells of our synaptic pathways are not redistributing themselves...they are keeping the pathways in tact. We are still the same person.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

The continous dying and copying of cells does not a new self create

So what makes the "self"? Answer that and I'll almost bet that we come to the same conclusion through slightly different paths.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[nutshell]

So what makes the "self"? Answer that and I'll almost bet that we come to the same conclusion through slightly different paths.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

That's a good question. Here are by definitions of "self" and "soul."

Self: The unique individual awareness of a person.

Soul: The union of a spirit and physical body.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

ALTOONA, PA, United States (UPI) -- U.S. scientists say a father`s scent may delay the onset of sexual maturity in daughters -- part of an evolutionary strategy to prevent inbreeding.


'Biological fathers send out inhibitory chemical signals to their daughters,' said Robert Matchock, assistant professor of psychology at Penn State University`s Altoona Campus. 'In the absence of these signals, girls tend to sexually mature earlier.'


The effect of chemical cues on sexual maturity is common in the animal world, Matchock said, noting when the biological father is removed from rodent families, the daughters tend to mature faster.


Researchers, including Elizabeth Susman, professor of biobehavioral health at Penn State, collected menarcheal data from 1,938 college students. The data included information on factors such as the girls` family size, social environment, and how long the father had been absent.


'Our results indicate that girls without fathers matured approximately three months before girls whose fathers were present,' Matchock said, adding the data seem to suggest a relationship between length of the father`s absence and age of menarche -- the earlier the absence, the earlier the menarche.


The study is detailed in the American Journal of Human Biology.


Copyright 2006 by United Press International

Oh wow. Now that carries some interesting food for thought....

 

[Flappycat]

The bifurcation suggested to exist between matter and mind is wholly unqualified. There is no evidence for it.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

The bifurcation suggested to exist between matter and mind is wholly unqualified. There is no evidence for it.

First off I need to clairify a lack of knowledge on this subject just because of the fatc that I have never had that much of an interest in it, but I am always up for a good challenge. While I have not looked up everything I can on this subject here is what I have looked up so far.

From Ibid "Some might try to argue that the mind is identical to the Brain because the brain has a causal connection to the mind, or vice versa. However, Dr. J.P. Moreland and Dr. Gary Habermas explained 'It may be that for every mental activity, a neurophysiologist can find a physical activity in the brain with which it is correlated. But just because A causes B (or vice versa), or just because A and B are consantly correlated with each other, that does not mean that A is identical to B.....Therefore, and this is critical, physicalism [which holds that humans are completely physical without a mental component] cannot be established on the basis that mental states are causally related or constantly conjoined with each other in an embodied person. Physicalism needs identity [between the mind and the brain] to make it's case, and if something is true of a mental substance, property, or event that is not true of a physical substance, property, or event, then physicalism is false'.......
'Mental events are feelings of pain, episodes of thoughts, or sensory experiences. Physical events are happenings in the brain and central nervous system that can be described exhaustively using terms of chemistry and physics. However, physical events and their properties do not have the same features as do mental events and their properties.....An experiment will help you to see the difference. Picture a pink elephant in your mind. Now close your eyes and look at the image. In you mind you will see a pink property( a sense datum or a sensory way of experiencing ). There will be no pink elephant outside you, but there will be a pink image of one in your mind. However, there will be no pink entity in your brain; no neurophysiologist could open your brain and see a pink entity while you are having the sense image. The sensory event has a property-pink- that nobrain event has. Therefore, they cannot be identical. The sense image is a mental entity, not a physical one'"

Now the Bakers Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics(Norman Geisler) has a bit to state on the subject also, but I have yet to look it up. I will have to get back with you on that.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Willamena]

While I won't debate over what exactly is "the soul", One of the most telling proofs of it's existence in my opinion is the legal system. From Hank Hanengraaff's book "Resurrection":
"from a legal prospective, if human beings were merely material, they could not be held accountable this year for a crime committed last year, simply because physical identity changes over time. We are not the same people today that we were yesterday. Everyday we lose multiplied millions of microscopic particles-in fact, every seven years, virtually every part of our material anatomy changes, apart from aspects of our neurological system. Therefore, from a purely material perspective, 'the self who did the crime in the past is not literally the same self who is present at the time of punishment'"(Habermas and Moreland, "Buyond Death", 49)

That's brilliant. Thanks for posting that.

If this is indeed true, does the justice system practice a religious belief?

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

No, but a metaphysical one. Religion requires a mythology.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

That's brilliant. Thanks for posting that.

I'm sure ole Hank appreciate's the compliment.

No, but a metaphysical one. Religion requires a mythology.

I guess I sort of jumped the gun with the question . Nice answer though; although I'm not sure how to take your assesment of religion and mythology but I'll leave that alone in this thread. I tried to give you frubals but I have to give some to other people so I'll have to get back to you on that .

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[nutshell]

I have to admit I had a Freudian slip when I read the title of this thread.

I didn't read Humans: Disembodied Spirit or An Animal? ...

I read Husbands: Disembodied Spirit or An Animal?...

Yikes. I'll have to think this one through.