• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Do animals have souls?

A child will only think "that's wrong" if it's told that the behaviour it has exhibited is wrong. Humans don't just "know" what's right and wrong. Morals aren't innate for a human. If humans hadn't set down the whole "destructive == wrong", "hurting others == wrong" and, keep enforcing those with punishments such as prison and fines, we'd be the same way. We're drastically different as a species but that doesn't make us any better or any worse than any other animal and we have no right to say our differences make us better, as that's only our perception.

Baboons exhibit the same type of social punishments that we show in similar situations.
 
What I'm saying is that I think humans do know what the difference between right and wrong wrong is (or most of them, at least), and that is what a soul is -- this is why I don't think animals have souls like that. Are you really saying that punishments are the only thing keeping people from doing bad things? I don't not hurt people because my mum told me it was wrong when I was little -- maybe I did then, but not now.

What about things like fighting for equality? Why do most people think everyone should have equal opportunities, if all that's separating right from wrong is the prospect of punishment?

I don't like involving the idea of us being "better" or them being "worse" at all, that doesn't make any sense. They're just different. Life forms can't be judged in that way.
 
What about things like fighting for equality? Why do most people think everyone should have equal opportunities, if all that's separating right from wrong is the prospect of punishment?
Click to expand...

Because that's not right and wrong, that's one particular form of morality. Not everyone fights for equality, nor does everyone think everyone should have equal opportunities. If a society's majority values equal opportunities, it will be preferable for someone in that society to adhere to it. It makes their survival quite a bit easier.

Morality is never an absolute. Even if we believe fighting for equality is good, it does not necessarily have to be "good" in order for us to believe that it is good. It is situational whether fighting for equality is a good thing.

The only distinction is that on average, humans have a higher brain capacity (i.e. - can perform more computations with it) than most animals. And even then, that depends on how the network of neurons in the brain is wired.

Humans do not intrinsically know what right and wrong is, because nobody *can* know what right and wrong is. They can only know what right and wrong may be for them in a possible given situation. And most people adhere to fixed ideas of right and wrong, which have been handed down from the environment (most likely upbringing). Most people believe things are wrong because as children they have learned that it is asocial behaviour or "bad" or whatever, and they got punished for it by their parents at school. I am sure that if it were taught that burping were not bad by parents at large, and there was no societal stigma on it, then children would not see this as bad.

In other words, knowing right from wrong merely depends on how fast and accurately one can process stimuli in the brain. I would expect something with far less brainpower to, on average, make a wrong judgement more often. (You can test this by using a maze, food, and a particular breed of animal). But it doesn't give rise to the concept of a soul, unless you want to define a soul as the degree of sophistication of our moral knowledge (and that is not only a very shifty definition but also defeats the point of calling it a "soul", as it is not an entity on its own anymore as we usually discuss it).
 
I guess I believe in souls, and my say on the matter is, why should only humans get souls, we are anumals to if I am correct (I know I am), so why should every other animal not get a soul. If you believed in God, would a just God only give one species souls? Who knows, creatures may or may not have souls.
 
Well seeing as they had to have a vote to decide whether women had souls or not, then I guess I don't think anything has a soul.
If it can be determined merely through a couple of old guys raising their hands, then there's no reason to believe in souls atall.

And no, I don't think animals can create new whatevers, merely because everything they create is sort of programmed into them. It would be like saying "gee it was a good idea that I grew my intestines in this pattern 'cause it's so efficient."

Well maybe not, but still~
No, a spider's web is designed due to instincts or something. It's not something they learn or design, it's something they know. So if they already know it, it's not original or new or whatever.

I mean, as far as I know, primates are the only creatures that can even point. You point at a bone, the dog'll stare at your fingers, because they don't see the connection between the bone and your finger.
So how would they be able to design, if they can't even imagine?
 
Saith said:
No, a spider's web is designed due to instincts or something. It's not something they learn or design, it's something they know. So if they already know it, it's not original or new or whatever.
Click to expand...

But animals do learn -- mockingbirds, for example, make their songs by listening to other birds' songs. They don't know their songs from birth.

Other creatures are the same, too; crows are a good example. Crows these days have been known to use passing cars (which came pretty recent in the time of evolution) to crush walnuts, then wait for red light to fly down and eat them. It's obviously not something build into their genes -- there's not enough time for that.

I mean, as far as I know, primates are the only creatures that can even point. You point at a bone, the dog'll stare at your fingers, because they don't see the connection between the bone and your finger.
So how would they be able to design, if they can't even imagine?
Click to expand...

Pointing seemed to be something that is instinctual to humans. Dogs never developed the act of pointing because, for them, it doesn't help their survival -- it'll be hard to run after prey when you're using one of your legs to point. Pointing is a body language that dogs have no use for, and therefore don't understand because they've never seen it before.

Pointing is not a sign of intelligence.

Cats may think that humans don't have any intelligence at all because when they use their cat language to try to tell us something, we just smile and say "awww, how cute".
 
I do not believe there is such thing as a soul, but about animals being able to create new ideas...I might be missing the point here, but there is a spider known as the Portia, and in this species, each devises its own method of catching other spiders.

If by "ideas" you mean existential crap, many animals can't really comprehend themselves, which is pretty much a requirement for existential thought. So...not really.
 
Yes, animals can create new concepts and ideas.
Cats do not instinctually know how to open doors or operate human tools. However, cats can be taught, or learn by themselves for example to open swinging doors (Especially pulling doors open is something that cats don't, to my knowledge, do naturally too much.), stand on their hindlegs (again, I don't think they do that naturally.) Also, classical conditioning is one example of animals learning- if a bell is ringed when a dog is fed, the dog will soon associate the ringing with food, and begin to salivate when hearing the bell, even if there is no food nearby.
Also, chimps are innovative and can invent tools and uses for them, such as a pack of chimps which washed their vegetables. That was not instinctual to the species, but invented by a young female chimpanzee. The others started imitating the washing, and soon everyone (save the old males) washed their food. The parents taught this skill to their offspring, and so it was transferred along.

(I write really formally today, my apologies. Especially if I make a mistake.)
 
... they learned to do it, because I didn't notice that the first cat was doing it until a few years after we got him. I noticed the second cat doing it about a year after we got him and I suspect he picked up the door-opening skills from the first one, because he's a pretty stupid cat normally and I doubt there's any way he figured it out on his own.
 
Sreservoir&Leafpool: My point. If animals couldn't make new ideas and concepts, they couldn't learn to push or pull doors. :3
 
Observing IS learning.

For example kids learn to talk by observing and listening to their parents. As with feral children, they don't ever learn instinctively to talk or emote if they are raised by, say, wolves. Instead, they learn the wolf gestures and body language. (Two kids were 'rescued' from the wolves and taken to an orphanage. They tried to teach them how to talk, but the older sister [younger died from stress] could only learn basic language such as 'Ball is in the box' or some such.)

What about chimpanzees? They are animals all the same, but they invent tools and ideas all on their own, and the japanese macaque learned that staying in the hot springs in the winter is good for their survival.
 
I feel a soul is a thing created by humans, because we needed something to look forward to after death when we created religion. Do animals have souls? No. Do animals have religion? No. The the showing of feelings, and spirits can be seen as a behavioral pattern, for the lack of a better thought. Animals can be depressing, or very silly. But it's not like they're trying to be. Most wild animals don't feel. That's how we define having a soul. The abilities to love, hate, be happy, and feel sadness. Feelings are the key to the definition of a soul. We have bred some animals into a false sense of having a soul, like dogs that save their owners. We perceive this to be love, but really it doesn't know any better way to get food. dogs used to be able to hunt for themselves, and some still can. Most however, have been formed to what we see fit. Most house cats are similar. Don't try to bring home a leopard and expect it to eat the food out of the bowl you set out for it. It would likely maul you first, because you look similar to a food source it is used to.

And that's my take, for the most part. If I think of something else, I'll edit.
 
Last edited:
Ymedron said:
Observing IS learning.

For example kids learn to talk by observing and listening to their parents. As with feral children, they don't ever learn instinctively to talk or emote if they are raised by, say, wolves. Instead, they learn the wolf gestures and body language. (Two kids were 'rescued' from the wolves and taken to an orphanage. They tried to teach them how to talk, but the older sister [younger died from stress] could only learn basic language such as 'Ball is in the box' or some such.)

What about chimpanzees? They are animals all the same, but they invent tools and ideas all on their own, and the japanese macaque learned that staying in the hot springs in the winter is good for their survival.
Click to expand...

Not at the same rate, though.
 
Not at the same rate as humans, anyway. We are proven to have more of a learning capability than most wild animals, dolphins being the closest, I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom