Theistic view of animal souls?

[David Swidler]

A colleague just lost her mother, and the free association that jumbled my brain after hearing that eventually wound up at an article I read a couple of months ago about a couple putting their old, infirm dog to sleep.

The piece touched on the human tendency to anthropomorphize pets' actions, such that this couple perceived the dog's last act - licking them both just as the syringe plunger went down - as a goodbye kiss.

The extent to which people impute human emotions to animals makes a fascinating study, but I'd like to get some information on a different aspect of this phenomenon: do western religions believe that animals have souls? Are there differences among those religions? Of course you'd have to define "soul" in that case. Jeez, this is tougher than I thought.

Anyway, I just wanted to get a general picture, if anyone has any ideas or links (or just plain opinion; that'd be interesting too) please post them.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

That depends on the specific cult. Traditionally the Abrahamic religions claim that only human beings have souls. But nevertheless many Christians believe that they do. I don't know about Jews or Mulims, but it's a pretty safe bet that if you can imagine it, you can find somebody who believes it.

Dr. Stupid

[David Swidler]

I've no doubt people believe it. Considering the attachment people can develop to their pets it's all but a given. Something else that just occurred to me is the question of pets in general - is it more widespread than it once was? Did the ancients develop deep attachments to their pets as much as we tend to? If so, there should be some early treament of the topic, no?

I suppose I should have made my question a bit clearer. Are there any (mainstream?) religious views on the subject?

[UrsulaV]

Something else that just occurred to me is the question of pets in general - is it more widespread than it once was? Did the ancients develop deep attachments to their pets as much as we tend to? If so, there should be some early treament of the topic, no?


My guess is that probably it's more widespread now, as so many more people have moved away from subsistence living, and you can afford a pet purely for companionship. Also, there's a much broader range of pets available, and much more cheaply--if you were a Viking with a potential passion for guinea pigs, you were pretty much outta luck.

Nevertheless, some breeds of cats go back centuries, particularly in Asia, and were pampered and treated as very high class citizens. This doesn't neccessarily translate into affection, of course--Egyptians worshipped cats as gods at some point, but did they become deeply attached to them, or keep them on pedestals? I dunno.

On the other hand, supposedly Alexander the Great named a city after his horse, because he was so distraught when it died.

I think it was "The Forest People" where Turnbull described the natives raising baby deer and monkeys as pets, and treating them with great affection, so at least some primitive societies keep pets--but whether or not they think they have souls is probably another question.

[PatKelley]

The ancient Egyptians did also mummify cats in addition to people, but they also mummified falcons, alligators, and even food. Did the food have a ba? Dunno, but Egyptians appeared to even consider that places had a ba, and that to have a representation in the afterlife, something must possess both ba and ka, so it would seem that Egyptians (ancient Egyptians) did not realize a dichotomy as strict as some.

[KingMerv00]

Ever notice that only cute animals have souls? No cockroaches in heaven.

A great number of the faithful will gladly trade in their official dogma, if too offensive, for a fluffy analgesic.

Also, people have trouble believing that complex pet behavior is purely chemical. If they did, they might accidently question whether complex human behavior is supernatural or not.

[Ausmerican]

While, in the past, people may or may not have formed bonds with their pets I am willing to bet that this is the first era where there are multi billion dollar industries based on providing pets with such 'necessities' as designer clothes, jewellery, gourmet food, furniture and psychics.

[ruach1]

David Swidler
The extent to which people impute human emotions to animals makes a fascinating study, but I'd like to get some information on a different aspect of this phenomenon: do western religions believe that animals have souls?
Obviously, it depends on who you ask. I saw the question, and I will give you a brief, honest response.
Christians don't generally believe animals have souls because Jesus never talks about saving animal souls and/or animals receiving the gift of eternal life through faith. On the other hand, if you took a poll of 1,000 Christians and asked if they would see "Spot," "Fido," or "Mr. Boots" in heaven, many would respond in the positive in terms of: "I hope so. I don't see why not. Mr. Boots never did anything to send him to hell."
Of course you'd have to define "soul" in that case.
Now the words soul and spirit are of distinct importance in the Christian faith. In the NT, they are used interchangeably to denote the inner being or heart of the person which has the inner capability to access God and be regenerated by God's Spirit by authentically accepting Jesus into the heart/spirit/soul/psyche--all synonyms in this regard.

However, when a few more books are cracked concerning the subject, we find more to the situation. Soul, in Judeo-Christian terminology, can denote more specifically the life-force energy or breath of life God "gave" to all living things, human and animal alike (Gen 2:7, 6:17, Psalm 31:5, 32:2, Ecc 3:19, etc.) So, in this regard to say that animals have soul as in the breath of life/life animating principle from God, then yes animals have soul in the biblical sense. What happens to this soul at the point of death of the physical body is anyone's guess. JC metaphysics doesn't normally allow for the soul or life-force in animals to pass on into heaven in an intact and individual form.

Now when we look up the word spirit, we are probably referring to that which your question of whether animals have souls is really addressing. Yes, animals have intelligence, consciousness, feelings, and, in my opinion, even dream (saw it once with a dog of mine--no one can tell me she wasn't dreaming in that moment). However, animals, in the biblical sense, don't have being as in human being meaning they don't have a spirit that has the wherewithal to accept God's Spirit (Ex 3:14, John 4:24) through Christ and thus, through Spirit to spirit connection and interelation, don't have the capability to go to heaven as we normally (or not normally) understand it. (Yeah, but I sure do wish to see Shadow when I get there) :)

Jeez, this is tougher than I thought.
I do believe what I wrote above, but like all things spiritual, laboratory evidence and video witness just isn't in the cards. Either you accept it or you don't. (And I prophesy I will see those last seven words of mine quoted in blue and followed by stern and hearty denials.) ;)

I hope this helped. :)

[Ryokan]

Can a dog attain buddhahood? (http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/gateless-gate/1.html)

[Iacchus]

Anyway, I just wanted to get a general picture, if anyone has any ideas or links (or just plain opinion; that'd be interesting too) please post them.Perhaps the word you're looking for here is animism? (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=animism)

[David Swidler]

Perhaps the word you're looking for here is animism? (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=animism)
Not quite. Animism is much broader than what I'm wondering about here.

I'm aware of people who won't so much as kill ants or houseflies, but that's more out of cultivating respect for life than a testament to belief in souls.
(On the other hand they eat meat and swat mosquitos. Hmm....)

I suppose it's a question of consciousness. That's supposedly what a soul reflects. So, do animals have consciousness? Doubtful.

That people believe they'll see Rover or Pookins again beyind the grave probably says more about those people than about whether pets have souls.

[fruit_loup]

Depends on whom you ask, as the broad range of answers illustrates lol. In many Native American shamanic -and indeed shamanic views of other cultures- belief, animal spirits play a highly important role. The views are not always animistic, and some do make distinctions between the spirit and the soul, but a good many do not.

As for the Christian biblical sense, ruach1 is quite correct. But as far as extra-biblical doctrine is concerned, most Christians do not(a point I find highly amusing). If you are a bit more interested in ruach1's answer I would recommend a search on the Hebrew word "nephash."

[Iacchus]

I suppose it's a question of consciousness. That's supposedly what a soul reflects. So, do animals have consciousness? Doubtful.Oh really? If animals don't have consciousness, how could we possibly be related to them in the evolutionary sense? There's no doubt in my mind that animals have an essence or "spirit" but, as to whether that constitutes having a soul or not, I couldn't say. Or, at least if they did, it could not be construed as human.

[KingMerv00]

Oh really? If animals don't have consciousness, how could we possibly be related to them in the evolutionary sense? There's no doubt in my mind that animals have an essence or "spirit" but, as to whether that constitutes having a soul or not, I couldn't say. Or, at least if they did, it could not be construed as human.

Consciousness is a sliding scale. You seem to think that it is an all or nothing proposition. Tell me, which of these things have consciousness:

1) Rocks
2) Prions
3) Viruses
4) Bacteria
5) Protists
6) Fungus
7) Algae
8) Plants in general
9) Worms
10) Fish
11) Amphibians
12) Reptiles
13) Birds
14) Cats
15) Dogs
16) Apes
17) Humans
18) You

Edit: Also, which have souls/spirits? How do you know?

[Iacchus]

Consciousness is a sliding scale. You seem to think that it is an all or nothing proposition. Tell me, which of these things have consciousness:Why do you say that? I think all things that are living have an element of consciousness to them. And mostly likely all things that are not living, just that the spirit is inert.

[KingMerv00]

I think all things that are living have an element of consciousness to them. And mostly likely all things that are not living, just that the spirit is inert.

I have four rocks:

1) One has consciousness and an active spirit.
2) One has consciousness and an inactive spirit.
3) One has consciousness and no spirit.
4) One has no consciousness and no spirit.

How are they different? How could you tell them apart?

[Iacchus]

I have four rocks:

1) One has consciousness and an active spirit.
2) One has consciousness and an inactive spirit.
3) One has consciousness and no spirit.
4) One has no consciousness and no spirit.

How are they different? How could you tell them apart?Well, considering that all "we" have is the conscious experience, and rocks are very much a part of that conscious experience -- albeit "inert" -- what else is there to say?

[KingMerv00]

... what else is there to say?

Lemme help you.

"I can tell the difference by ________."

[PatKelley]

I have four rocks:

1) One has consciousness and an active spirit.
2) One has consciousness and an inactive spirit.
3) One has consciousness and no spirit.
4) One has no consciousness and no spirit.

How are they different? How could you tell them apart?

Rock 1 would betray itself by remaining stationary in the face of wind and rain.

Rock 2 would not move on Sundays.

Rock 3 would burn with HELLFIRE

Rock 4 would be completely inert.

[PatKelley]

Why do you say that? I think all things that are living have an element of consciousness to them. And mostly likely all things that are not living, just that the spirit is inert.
Um, subjectively one can only say that I exist because I have a sense of me. Everything else is a Turing machine.

[Iacchus]

Um, subjectively one can only say that I exist because I have a sense of me. Everything else is a Turing machine.The only things that we know of, per se' ... are in and of the element of consciousness.

[PatKelley]

The only things that we know of, per se' ... are in and of the element of consciousness.

Maybe you didn't quite understand. I have no proof of your or anyone else's conciousness. I only have direct evidence of my own. To accept that you have conciousness, I have to eschew direct evidence in favor of indirect.

This is the point: to demonstrate conciousness, we need something demonstrable. There is no difference between an unconcious and a concious rock, ergo no verifiable claim can be made.

[Iacchus]

This is the point: to demonstrate conciousness, we need something demonstrable. There is no difference between an unconcious and a concious rock, ergo no verifiable claim can be made.What is a rock? Would you be able to explain it to me if you weren't conscious? Whereas if I were to accept that it's a rock, how would I know, outside of being conscious that is?

[fruit_loup]

What is a rock? Would you be able to explain it to me if you weren't conscious? Whereas if I were to accept that it's a rock, how would I know, outside of being conscious that is?


Are you asking us to knock you unconscious with a rock and then ask you what it is that we bashed you across the head with? I am afraid I do not follow your writing style(I have a problem following all things subtle which may be why). To be honest, your writing style sems to smack of a person who likes to sound as though he or she is some great enlightened being with all the answers while, in reality, you simply make use of using conundrums and backward speaking as a means to hopefully confuse us into agreeing with you.

Consciousness is an intangeable idea and as such cannot really be proven. A deity(ies) would be likewise. Do I believe in any deities? No. Do I believe in the possibility of deities? Yes. Thus I am agnostic. The consciousness of a rock would be a likewise example. Do I believe in spirits and if so does consciousness lie within them? Yes to the first part, couldn't tell you on the later. In the end it comes down to what knowledge and your own personal life experiences have directed you to believe.
(note: if in my rambling I am starting to sound anything like Iacchus, pm me and I shall give you my address so you can promptly come put a bullet into my head)

[Iacchus]

The only thing that we understand about the rock, is that it's strictly a phenomenon of consciousness.

[fruit_loup]

The only thing that we understand about the rock, is that it's strictly a phenomenon of consciousness.

To direct you to your earlier line of reasoning my answer is, "What rock?"

[KingMerv00]

Lemme help you.

"I can tell the difference by ________."

Just to remind Iacchus.

[KingMerv00]

To be honest, your writing style sems to smack of a person who likes to sound as though he or she is some great enlightened being with all the answers while, in reality, you simply make use of using conundrums and backward speaking as a means to hopefully confuse us into agreeing with you.

Welcome to the forum.

In 4 short posts you have completely grasped the troll that is Iacchus.

[Ryokan]

(note: if in my rambling I am starting to sound anything like Iacchus, pm me and I shall give you my address so you can promptly come put a bullet into my head)

Thus, you can live in The Moment.

[fruit_loup]

Just to remind Iacchus.
I have a couple of questions for you as it may help Iacchus. Is this a normal rock or a pet rock. And does the pet psychic do pet rocks?

[fruit_loup]

Welcome to the forum.

In 4 short posts you have completely grasped the troll that is Iacchus.
Thank you for the welcome.
A troll eh. Iacchus is the sort of person that makes me feel dirty for being as spiritually open-minded as I tend to be. I hope you do not judge all agnostics or even theists poorly because of him/her/it *goes to check profile*

Thus, you can live in The Moment.

Do we have a choice but to live in the moment? We lived in the past and will live in the future but neither of those things ever actually occur as we are always in the moment.

[Ryokan]

I have a couple of questions for you as it may help Iacchus. Is this a normal rock or a pet rock. And does the pet psychic do pet rocks?

And... is it a European rock or an African rock? ;)

[KingMerv00]

Thank you for the welcome.
A troll eh. Iacchus is the sort of person that makes me feel dirty for being as spiritually open-minded as I tend to be. I hope you do not judge all agnostics or even theists poorly because of him/her/it...

Well I don't hate agnostics. I am one. I live my life as if there is no God since there is no convincing evidence to be had. Even if there was, would it show which god?

I don't hate theists, though I do think they are misguided.

[Tricky]

Thank you for the welcome.
A troll eh. Iacchus is the sort of person that makes me feel dirty for being as spiritually open-minded as I tend to be. I hope you do not judge all agnostics or even theists poorly because of him/her/it *goes to check profile*
I echo the welcome extended by others. Yes, you catch on quickly. Another thing you will pick up quickly is that the old atheist/agnostic schism is just imagined. I am an atheist, but I am an agnostic athiest. Atheism is a position of belief, while agnosticism is a position of knowledge. I have no belief in a god (making me atheist) but I admit that I don't know (making me agnostic). Perhaps like you, I called myself an agnostic until I discovered that they are not mutually exclusive.

Just out of interest about your forum name, do you use a magnifying glass to look at fruits? Or are you like the "loup garou", the french version of a werewolf, except that at the full moon, you become a kumquat?

[ruach1]

Tricky
Just out of interest about your forum name, do you use a magnifying glass to look at fruits? Or are you like the "loup garou", the french version of a werewolf, except that at the full moon, you become a kumquat?
:)

[Ragutis]

Christians don't generally believe animals have souls because Jesus never talks about saving animal souls and/or animals receiving the gift of eternal life through faith. On the other hand, if you took a poll of 1,000 Christians and asked if they would see "Spot," "Fido," or "Mr. Boots" in heaven, many would respond in the positive in terms of: "I hope so. I don't see why not. Mr. Boots never did anything to send him to hell."



Why should Jesus speak of the need for animals to be "saved"? Jesus' supposed sacrifice was to absolve the Semites of the taint of "Original Sin". Such a sacrifice is apparently Biblically unnecessary for animals, including our pets. One could speculate that perhaps this is because they did not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Once Adam and Eve did, they became more than docile pets of God and now carried a burden that must be shed before salvation could be reached. As quoted: "Mr. Boots never did anything to send him to hell."

Of course, this doesn't answer the OP.

But what reason would justify disregarding intelligent, concious, self-aware (to some extent at least) creatures? Maybe the fruit carried with it this biblical spirit or soul that is more than the mere breath of life? And a God that recognized a human desire/need for animal companionship in Eden and on Earth surely couldn't deprive us of the same in Paradise? (Who was it that said "If there ain't dogs in Heaven, then I don't want to go."? sounds like a country song :) ) Or is the company of the Almighty and the world's goody-goodies supposed to be more than satisfactory for all eternity? I can't decide who's being treated more cruelly, the animals deprived of Heaven, or the humans deprived of their companionship in the hereafter.

I suspect that the omission of discussion of animal souls and/or heavenly reward from the Bible a reflection of the authors: people to whom animals were either sustenance and labor or nuisance and danger. Pehaps the wealthy of the time could afford pets or hunting animals and develop affectionate relationships, but certainly not your typical Jewish peasant who would view beasts in terms limited to: food, pest, locomotion, enemy.

[c4ts]

I thought the theistic view was derived from an interpretation of Aristotle. They took the part where he said animals had a different kind of soul, but plugged in the Christian definition of "soul," and used it to confirm the conviction that all nature was created for mankind somehow.

[Iacchus]

Consciousness is an intangeable idea and as such cannot really be proven.Can you prove it to yourself? If not, then what business do you have trying to prove anything else?

[fruit_loup]

Just out of interest about your forum name, do you use a magnifying glass to look at fruits? Or are you like the "loup garou", the french version of a werewolf, except that at the full moon, you become a kumquat?


Lol the loup is the part for "wolf" so I guess it is really saying fruity wolf? Though if I were to be a shapeshifting bit of fruit, I am sure I would go for apple, noone ever suspects the apple.



Can you prove it to yourself? If not, then what business do you have trying to prove anything else?


In the future, when adressing me, please do me a favor and use something even remotely akin to human reasoning. Consciousness and having or not having it in no way stands as proof, evidence, or a means of gaining the ability to proove a point. Look at the great variety of medicines and technology we have by paying attention to things which have no consciousness. Or hey, even just look at how much happier the world is when you are asleep.

Then we move on to my own personal consciousness. How can I be sure that my consciousness is true consciousness and some synthetic simulacrum of consciousness? Easy, I cannot. But as the end result of a genuine consciousness and a synthetic consciousness is the same, I cannot see how this plays any import in our discussion. So I will repeat KingMerv00's question of "how would you tell the difference?" and I will add the question of "Why bother knowing the difference."

[Iacchus]

In the future, when adressing me, please do me a favor and use something even remotely akin to human reasoning. Consciousness and having or not having it in no way stands as proof, evidence, or a means of gaining the ability to proove a point.Then what's your point? :con2:

[Tricky]

Then what's your point? :con2:
I'd say he's going through "Iacchus Shock". It is the unpleasant feeling of surprise that new posters get when they see that their thoughtful posts have been replied to with such inane and pseudo-deep non sequiturs as the kind you continually spout. Some of them put you on "ignore" almost immediately, but there are those like me who won't give in to the urge to blank out your drivel and will continue to contest it.

It is a bit of a shame that you continue to interrupt every discussion on R&P, with those same two or three thoughts that you hold sacred, but hey, its a free forum.

[Iacchus]

I'd say he's going through "Iacchus Shock". It is the unpleasant feeling of surprise that new posters get when they see that their thoughtful posts have been replied to with such inane and pseudo-deep non sequiturs as the kind you continually spout. Some of them put you on "ignore" almost immediately, but there are those like me who won't give in to the urge to blank out your drivel and will continue to contest it. Drivel? Yes, we are all only human after all.

It is a bit of a shame that you continue to interrupt every discussion on R&P, with those same two or three thoughts that you hold sacred, but hey, its a free forum.You bet.

[fruit_loup]

Then what's your point? :con2:

I was not attempting to make a point but laying a groundwork for you to reasonably answer a question instead of spouting the nonsense which you seem to take great joy in. If I were to have a point then my point would be that you were using faulty logic. So you now need to apply a proper bit of thought to the questions and answer them please.

[KingMerv00]

I have four rocks:

1) One has consciousness and an active spirit.
2) One has consciousness and an inactive spirit.
3) One has consciousness and no spirit.
4) One has no consciousness and no spirit.

How are they different? How could you tell them apart?

Whenever you're ready Iacchus. No pressure.

[KingMerv00]

I have four rocks:

1) One has consciousness and an active spirit.
2) One has consciousness and an inactive spirit.
3) One has consciousness and no spirit.
4) One has no consciousness and no spirit.

How are they different? How could you tell them apart?

*Bump*

[Iacchus]

Whenever you're ready Iacchus. No pressure.As I have said before, rocks are inert. So, whether you wish to say they're comprised of consciousness or not (or spirit), it still doesn't change the fact that they're inert.

[c4ts]

Well, considering that all "we" have is the conscious experience, and rocks are very much a part of that conscious experience -- albeit "inert" -- what else is there to say?

Some kind of answer would help, intead of inviting him to throw those hypothetical rocks at you!

How do you tell the rocks apart?

[KingMerv00]

As I have said before, rocks are inert. So, whether you wish to say they're comprised of consciousness or not (or spirit), it still doesn't change the fact that they're inert.

Ok I'll alter my question a bit to make it easier.

I have four people:

1) One has consciousness and an active spirit.
2) One has consciousness and an inactive spirit.
3) One has consciousness and no spirit.
4) One has no consciousness and no spirit.

How are they different? How could you tell them apart?

[Iacchus]

Ok I'll alter my question a bit to make it easier.

I have four people:

1) One has consciousness and an active spirit.
2) One has consciousness and an inactive spirit.
3) One has consciousness and no spirit.
4) One has no consciousness and no spirit.

How are they different? How could you tell them apart?Later, I have to go to work ...

[KingMerv00]

Later, I have to go to work ...

Morbid curiousity, what do you do for a living?

[c4ts]

I hope he isn't paid for what he knows...

[David Swidler]

I suspect that the omission of discussion of animal souls and/or heavenly reward from the Bible a reflection of the authors: people to whom animals were either sustenance and labor or nuisance and danger. Pehaps the wealthy of the time could afford pets or hunting animals and develop affectionate relationships, but certainly not your typical Jewish peasant who would view beasts in terms limited to: food, pest, locomotion, enemy.

There are quite a few issues not directly addressed in the Bible, but nevertheless one can detect a certain attitude. This would be such a case. While it's clear that the Bible views animals as secondary to human goals ("be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth and conquer it"), there's still a place for showing concern for animal suffering, and not just physical: sending away the mother bird when taking chicks or eggs; not yoking an ass and ox together; not slaughtering an animal and its parent on the same day, etc. I don't think, however, that one can make a case for consciousness/souls based on the Bible alone - and that's why I specifically referred to "religion" instead of "the Bible". Anyone a Talmud scholar? Church father writings? Shaariah?

[Iacchus]

Ok I'll alter my question a bit to make it easier.

I have four people:

1) One has consciousness and an active spirit.
2) One has consciousness and an inactive spirit.
3) One has consciousness and no spirit.
4) One has no consciousness and no spirit.

How are they different? How could you tell them apart?I could have a dream, and dream of an inanimate object, such as a chair. Now, can you tell the difference between me and the inanimate object in the dream? And yet both are comprised of the same substance, are they not?

[Iacchus]

Morbid curiousity, what do you do for a living?Do you really want to know? The "morbid" part denotes ignorance.

[Mercutio]

Do you really want to know? The "morbid" part denotes ignorance.
Actually, the question itself denotes ignorance. We are, except for you, all ignorant of what you do for a living. The usual cure for this sort of ignorance is to ask the appropriate question of the approprate source.

The "morbid" part denotes dread.

[Tricky]

Actually, the question itself denotes ignorance. We are, except for you, all ignorant of what you do for a living. The usual cure for this sort of ignorance is to ask the appropriate question of the approprate source.

The "morbid" part denotes dread.
Exactly. Suppose he's a teacher! (shudder!):jaw-dropp

[Roboramma]

I could have a dream, and dream of an inanimate object, such as a chair.

How exactly will that help you to tell them apart?

Say I brought these four people in to a room. After you wake up will you be able to say, "Person A has conciousness and no spirit"?

Just can't seem to make the connection here between dreaming about a chair and telling apart four people. Unless of course you weren't actually trying to answer the question.

[Roboramma]

As to the animals with souls bit, I can't really speak to any religion's viewpoint. Nor can I really say anything about souls - I don't beleive in them.
So why am I bothering to respond?

Well the point about animal emotions is interesting. I don't see any reason to suggest that animals don't have emotions. Certainly they are different from ours in various ways, and differ amoung species as well.

Consider that their behavior is entirely consistent with the idea that they are acting from emotion. As consistent as our own is.

Or to put it another way, I have pretty much the same evidence that other animals have emotions as I do that other humans have emotions.
Not identical evidence, and maybe not quite as strong, but the same kind of evidence, and still very strong I think.

Of course one cannot lump all animals together. Does an ant "feel"? That's a question I can't really answer, but I find it far more doubtful than the idea that a bat does.
The more complex the nervous system, it seems the more reason emotion might evolve, and the more complex those emotions might become.
As to the experience of emotion, I don't see any reason to suggest that it would be any less intense in other animals than it is in humans.
But I assume natural physical causes for these experiences.

I wonder what other's take on this is.

[Iacchus]

Actually, the question itself denotes ignorance. We are, except for you, all ignorant of what you do for a living. The usual cure for this sort of ignorance is to ask the appropriate question of the approprate source.

The "morbid" part denotes dread.Yes, fear of the unknown. By the way, what I do I don't do by choice. If I really had my druthers, I would be writing books.

[Iacchus]

Just can't seem to make the connection here between dreaming about a chair and telling apart four people. Unless of course you weren't actually trying to answer the question.Or, because you tend to be too analytical perhaps? If something exists as "a whole," shouldn't you accept it as a whole first, before you begin tearing it apart?

[Mercutio]

Or, because you tend to be too analytical perhaps? If something exists as "a whole," shouldn't you accept it as a whole first, before you begin tearing it apart?
Ah, the old "you would see that it is true if only you first accept that it is true" argument.

If something falls apart at the first slight investigation, should we really believe it exists as a whole?

[Iacchus]

Ah, the old "you would see that it is true if only you first accept that it is true" argument.

If something falls apart at the first slight investigation, should we really believe it exists as a whole?Yet the only thing that you are capable of proving is that everything is comprised of bits and pieces. So what? Do you have any idea what it means as a whole? ... Yeah, that's what I thought. ;)

[fruit_loup]

Yet the only thing that you are capable of proving is that everything is comprised of bits and pieces. So what? Do you have any idea what it means as a whole? ... Yeah, that's what I thought. ;)

So you simply assume something as a whole then base your beliefs from that assumption? Seems a little backwards don't you think?

Merc, I have a strong feeling his job may involve the phrase "would you like fries with that".

Found a bit on the topic on animal souls, well not technically but I thought it would throw an interesting thought into the conversation.

After taking the woman and changing her to earth, Old One gathered some of her flesh and rolled it into balls, as people do with mud or clay.
He made the first group of these balls into the ancients, the beings of the early world. The ancients were people, yet also animals. In form some looked human while some walked on all fours like animals. Some could fly like birds; others could swim like fishes.
All had the gift of speech, as well as greater powers and cunning than either animals or people. But deer were never among the ancients; they were always animals, even as they are today.

[Iacchus]

So you simply assume something as a whole then base your beliefs from that assumption? Seems a little backwards don't you think?

Merc, I have a strong feeling his job may involve the phrase "would you like fries with that".Truth does not exist independently outside of the whole. If you believe anything other than that, then you are leading yourself and, others astray.

[PatKelley]

So you simply assume something as a whole then base your beliefs from that assumption? Seems a little backwards don't you think?

Merc, I have a strong feeling his job may involve the phrase "would you like fries with that".

Found a bit on the topic on animal souls, well not technically but I thought it would throw an interesting thought into the conversation.
[Charlton Heston]
Soylent Deer isn't made from people! It ISN'T PEOPLE!
[/Charlton Heston]

[Roboramma]

Truth does not exist independently outside of the whole. If you believe anything other than that, then you are leading yourself and, others astray.
Truth is completely independent of the whole. If you believe anything other than that, you are leading yourself and others astray.

See I can make unsupported statements too.

[Iacchus]

Truth is completely independent of the whole. If you believe anything other than that, you are leading yourself and others astray.

See I can make unsupported statements too.And, do you know what it means to keep things "in context?" Think about it.

[c4ts]

Exactly. Suppose he's a teacher! (shudder!):jaw-dropp

Suppose he has tenure!

[Roboramma]

And, do you know what it means to keep things "in context?" Think about it.
Are you capable of a response that isn't a question? Think about it.

[Roboramma]

Or, because you tend to be too analytical perhaps? If something exists as "a whole," shouldn't you accept it as a whole first, before you begin tearing it apart?
Actually I do accept it as a whole first - that's one of the reasons that I might want to know more about it. For instance, I see a house as a great way to provide shelter and comfort. But if I wanted to build a house of my own, the first thing I'd need to do is start looking at the various parts that make up the whole to see what function they form. The foundations hold up the house. The walls hold up the roof and provide shelter from the wind. A lot more in depth analysis would be needed before I could build a functioning house.
To understand how it works as a whole, I need to understand the parts. But you're right, it was seeing it as a whole in the beginning that made me interested in the parts at all.
I look at the human body and see an incredible thing. I then want to know more about the functioning of the parts so that I can understand how they come together to form the whole.

But what does any of this have to do with making a connection between dreaming about a chair and telling apart four people? You still haven't made any meaningful response to that.

edited for a typo.

[Iacchus]

I look at the human body and see an incredible thing. I then want to know more about the functioning of the parts so that I can understand how they come together to form the whole.Yet even to the extent that you understand it, that still doesn't guarantee that you can put it all back together and get it to function as a whole. You know, sort of like Humpty Dumpty?

But what does any of this have to do with making a connection between dreaming about a chair and telling apart four people? You still haven't made any meaningful response to that.Because this was the initial question ...

I have four rocks:

1) One has consciousness and an active spirit.
2) One has consciousness and an inactive spirit.
3) One has consciousness and no spirit.
4) One has no consciousness and no spirit.

How are they different? How could you tell them apart?To which I replied ...

Well, considering that all "we" have is the conscious experience, and rocks are very much a part of that conscious experience -- albeit "inert" -- what else is there to say?So basically all I'm asking is what's the difference between what is animate versus what is inanimate, whether we're in the awaking state or, in the dream state? Either way, they seem to share a similar relationship don't they?

[Roboramma]

Yet even to the extent that you understand it, that still doesn't guarantee that you can put it all back together and get it to function as a whole. You know, sort of like Humpty Dumpty?
No, it doesn't, you're right. Although a complete understandig would guarantee that, it's difficult to get a complete understanding.
But not looking at it at all doesn't help to gain that complete understanding. Nor does not being able to put it back together again suggest that limited knowledge is useless.

Because this was the initial question ...

To which I replied ...

So basically all I'm asking is what's the difference between what is animate versus what is inanimate, whether we're in the awaking state or, in the dream state? Either way, they seem to share a similar relationship don't they?
I'm not sure. But that doesn't answer the question. I'm not even sure if it isn't just a restatement of the question. Are you saying that you can't answer the question, or that it is unanswerable? Or is your question an answer in itself? If so, could you clarify it? I know you've just done so, but I'm still unclear.

It seems like your question is about life. What is the difference between the living and the non-living? The line can be somewhat blurred. Is a virus alive? But when you get far enough from the line, something can definitively be said to be alive or inanimate - a tree is alive. A rock is not.

My view of the reason that things are similar in dreams to what they are in reality is that the dreams are based upon our understanding of reality, so of course they share some similarities.

[Iacchus]

It seems like your question is about life. What is the difference between the living and the non-living?Yes, and if everything wasn't ultimately (in essence) comprised of spirit or, consciousness, regardless of how "solid" the material world may seem.