animal experimention - mistreating animals
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
Sorry but this is getting confusing. I don't know what you said or what I asked you. What was it made you suggest I needed classes in these particular things. (Leave it as history if you want).Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Canute,
Sorry I was not talking to youit was directed at DrNeroCF
But for the questions directed at me I advice a class in general psychology or a psychology text book.
Canute,
you were questioning me on how I placed the physical soul and research on where emotions come from.
you were questioning me on how I placed the physical soul and research on where emotions come from.
it is all pointless thoug, because we could also ask ourselves then what god would think of animal experimentation. And why would I bother to contemplate soul and god if I am an atheist? Is it really my problem that some people (for some unkown reason) think that these things exist? Should we then include them in a scientific discussion?
And the reasoning might be circular but it remains valid. If it isn't part of the natural world it has no place in modern science. Technically they don't exist. I could postulate the existence of a special soul for men. Does that mean that this special male soul exists?
So we could, although it would be more honest and objective to ask what WE would think of it if we were God.
No reason at all. But you might choose to give animals the benefit of the doubt, or at least accept that they don't like what is done to them even if they don't have what you call a 'soul'.
No it's not. It's not anybody's problem. If you find the reasons unknown I feel you should get to know them, even if you never accept them. [/B][/QUOTE]
They are not a proper topic of scientific discussion, and they never, ever will be.
That's an odd argument. It remains valid to the extent that 'soul', 'God' and 'consciousness' are not scientific concepts, since that is how we define science. Beyond that your assertion doesn't have any meaning. If you choose to believe that nothing exists except what third-person science can observe and explain then fair enough. I wouldn't want to argue with your faith. I take it you're a behaviourist.
Very true, but also very trivial. It's another circular argument.
Is there something technical about existing? I presume you mean that they don't exist in science, which is true.
No, of course not. Nevertheless you may be right. (Although I don't think so).
We could also ask what we think of it if we were a worm. We are not worms and we are not god.
I think I already mentioned that we torture animals.
Science deals with he natural world. It might be circular, but that doesn't change the fact that it is like that. Your statement that we have a soul is one of faith. We have a soul, because we can't exclude it. There are angels out there, because we can't exclude them, there are aliens watching us, because we can't exclude it. My mother was purple, because you can't exclude the possibility.
“Physical soul” was just a term I was using to make a point in that there is no spiritual soul, and research has placed emotions in neurons rather then some realm of higher existence.
let's leave this soul crap behind us. The only thing that can have soul is music.
Canute,
I now debunk you evidence that I have no clue what I'm saying... bitch.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/3/hh.html
www.finchcms.edu/cms/Psychiatry/cns/pplecturesweb/ Nutan%20Emotions%20CNS%200802.htm
http://www.finchcms.edu/cms/Psychiatry/cns/web files/Neurology of Emotion and Its Disorders.htm
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/brefs.html
http://www.psychology.adelaide.edu.au/resources/videolibrary/neurology/category-neurology.html
http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/gallery/young/emotion.htm
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ben/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/OP8RATUV/256,1,Neuropsychology of emotions
- if emotions were soul based then how is it that damage to specific areas of the brain effects emotions and the ability to perceive and/or control them?
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/pressrelease_braindamage_050592.htm
I now debunk you evidence that I have no clue what I'm saying... bitch.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/3/hh.html
www.finchcms.edu/cms/Psychiatry/cns/pplecturesweb/ Nutan%20Emotions%20CNS%200802.htm
http://www.finchcms.edu/cms/Psychiatry/cns/web files/Neurology of Emotion and Its Disorders.htm
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/brefs.html
http://www.psychology.adelaide.edu.au/resources/videolibrary/neurology/category-neurology.html
http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/gallery/young/emotion.htm
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ben/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/OP8RATUV/256,1,Neuropsychology of emotions
- if emotions were soul based then how is it that damage to specific areas of the brain effects emotions and the ability to perceive and/or control them?
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/pressrelease_braindamage_050592.htm
Would it not be better to see this in light of a brain-mind distinction instead of a body-soul distinction?
For a usable definition of soul the OED states;
I. 1. The principle of life in man or animals; animate existence. Obs. (freq. in OE. in Scriptural passages). 2. a. The principle of thought and action in man, commonly regarded as an entity distinct from the body; the spiritual part of man in contrast to the purely physical. Also occas., the corresponding or analogous principle in animals. Freq. in connexion with, or in contrast to, body.
In which case animals would have souls, but a bird would have a bird soul. Btw, are souls gendered?
As far as I understand in the secular society of Catholic Europe humans were considered separate from animals on the bases that they did not have a human soul. Among other things this was thought to mean that they had no mind, and could not think (process thought and time). This concept of animal as a mindless being is only weakly acceptable in our current society and it is generally accepted that our pets exhibiting emotions much like ours (debatable if this is just personification).
I don’t understand the idea of emotions being in the neurons. But I think its got something to do with trying to understand the mind by looking at the brain. Which I’m sure many philosophers have disagreed with.
Btw happy midsummer…
For a usable definition of soul the OED states;
I. 1. The principle of life in man or animals; animate existence. Obs. (freq. in OE. in Scriptural passages). 2. a. The principle of thought and action in man, commonly regarded as an entity distinct from the body; the spiritual part of man in contrast to the purely physical. Also occas., the corresponding or analogous principle in animals. Freq. in connexion with, or in contrast to, body.
In which case animals would have souls, but a bird would have a bird soul. Btw, are souls gendered?
As far as I understand in the secular society of Catholic Europe humans were considered separate from animals on the bases that they did not have a human soul. Among other things this was thought to mean that they had no mind, and could not think (process thought and time). This concept of animal as a mindless being is only weakly acceptable in our current society and it is generally accepted that our pets exhibiting emotions much like ours (debatable if this is just personification).
I don’t understand the idea of emotions being in the neurons. But I think its got something to do with trying to understand the mind by looking at the brain. Which I’m sure many philosophers have disagreed with.
Btw happy midsummer…
Originally posted by weebee
Btw happy midsummer…
sorry that I have to say this...but fuck midsummer. All the fins have fled to the countryside and the whole city of helsinki is deserted. It is like someone dropped a neutronbomb here.
There is nothing to do here. It just sucks.
I heard that the main Finnish newspaper runs a competition to guess how many people will turn up dead in the week after midsummer because everyone goes drinking in boats and so many people fall in drunk and drown…
Why don’t you take a red can of spray paint to the town? Or go crash someone’s party?
Why don’t you take a red can of spray paint to the town? Or go crash someone’s party?
"Trouble is the only weapon against boredom"
Summer? How the hell would I know I am stuck in front of a computer 6 hours a day!
Summer? How the hell would I know I am stuck in front of a computer 6 hours a day!
Last edited:
summer...yes..it almost was 15C here today...
OK - I was bitchy. Sorry but I got mad. I stear clear of trouble on the subjects of evolution, physics, biology and so on since there's too much I don't know about the details. However this is my patch we're on here.
I appreciate the trouble you've gone to posting all those links. However I am not going to read them because I know what they say. I have just read a complete issue of one of the main refereed journals for those scientifically researching consciousness, which was devoted to the idea of 'machine consciousness'. It was admitted by every author that we cannot even define consciousness scientifically, let alone say anything certain about it.
I have almost finished writing a complete rebuttal of all the arguments put forward by the contributors, which I am hoping might end up edited down and considered for publication.
I'd be quite happy to post you a copy. I need a couple more days to tidy it up but you'd be very welcome to read it and comment. It's 15,000 words but they're not all mine, since it contains many extracts. Let me know if you want a copy.
One thing is clear. If what you say is right then current researchers into consciousness don't know about it yet. Of course lots of claims are being made. But it is accepted that no scientific proofs relating to either the existence or the nature of consciousness currently exist. It has not yet even been proved that it arises from brains (although many of its contents clearly do, which is the answer to your question ).