animal experimention - mistreating animals

I was talking about emotions not consciousness. Consciousness can also be affected or destroyed through brain damages hence is must be part of the brain.
 
I'm going to try my hand at ridding this thread of the whole 'soul' argument. I'm only trying... and people should not be damned for trying... so don't damn me for trying.

The first time that the 'soul' argument was bought into this thread, it relied on the belief in God/heaven/hell/etc, saying that since animals didn't go to heaven, they had no souls. Since that was based on a religeous belief, the whole argument should be disregarded, because, religion is more a part of philiosophy than it is part of science and this thread goes under:

sciforums.com > Science > Biology & Genetics > animal experimention - mistreating animals

The whole 'soul' argument is based around an assumption. There is no proof that animals have no soul but there is a lot of proof that says animals feel physically and emotionally much the same as humans. That is a bit more than an assumption.

I tried.
 
nice try, but I think we all gave up on gettin this thing back on topic, but like I said, a worthy attempt, lets see what happens
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
I was talking about emotions not consciousness. Consciousness can also be affected or destroyed through brain damages hence is must be part of the brain.
Click to expand...
As my consciousness can be affected by sticking a pin in my foot then this seems to mean that feet are part of brains.
 
No but the nerves are. No I guess you believe the soul allow use to feel tactile sensation too? :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Dudeyhed
I'm going to try my hand at ridding this thread of the whole 'soul' argument. I'm only trying... and people should not be damned for trying... so don't damn me for trying.

The first time that the 'soul' argument was bought into this thread, it relied on the belief in God/heaven/hell/etc, saying that since animals didn't go to heaven, they had no souls. Since that was based on a religeous belief, the whole argument should be disregarded, because, religion is more a part of philiosophy than it is part of science and this thread goes under: etc
/B]
Click to expand...

Yeah nice try. But the whole discussion is made ridiculous by the fact that nobody is willing to give a definition of 'soul. This is why we're stuck in confusion and disagreement. It's impossible to assert anything about something that hasn't been defined. It's not a word I use so I don't have one to offer.
 
It seems to me that scientists believe, perhaps correctly, that they need to use animals in research. They thus make the claim that the animals are sufficiently similar as physical beings for the results to be applied to humans. For this to be socially acceptable religion and our current value system must hold the view that animals as physically similar to humans but mentally and socially dissimilar. Goal posts of who should be considered human are thus changeable through out history, such as land ownership, souls, IQ and so on. As more research is undertaken into animal psychology they are found to have complex thought and social structures which for the ‘common’ person seem as advance than their own situation.

I don’t think science or scientists can answer this problem, only inform, since it is society, not science that defines what characteristics should be used to decide how animals and humans are to be treated.

Maybe specific examples of an experiment would move this thread along?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top