It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man is just a lump of MEAT?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by worlds_away
 



I’d like to ask why we need a “soul”? Why can’t we just be an animal? And how does one go about classifying a soul? Or the lack of one?

Now we're talking.

Can an animal reflect on the beauty of a sunset? Care enough about other beings sufficiently so as to act self-sacrificially, even if it has never met them? Possess a concern for justice, or moral integrity?

(Though I have to confess, they do possess some extraordinary abilities
)

Animals do all of those things except maybe reflect on the beauty of the sunset, but we don't know if they're doing that or not

Wolves will handicap themselves if they're playing with a mate that is weaker than them, that shows morality and justice, aswell as outing other wolves out of the pack as a sort of prison for various things that wolves deem wrong.
Dolphins are known for acting sacrificially with other dolphins.
Just because we don't know what animals are thinking, doesn't mean they aren't just as moral as us somtimes, and maybe sometimes more so.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by hippomchippo]




posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by worlds_away
 



I’d like to ask why we need a “soul”? Why can’t we just be an animal? And how does one go about classifying a soul? Or the lack of one?

Now we're talking.

Can an animal reflect on the beauty of a sunset? Care enough about other beings sufficiently so as to act self-sacrificially, even if it has never met them? Possess a concern for justice, or moral integrity?

(Though I have to confess, they do possess some extraordinary abilities
)


Since we are animals and we see beauty in things, I would assume other animals also do, just maybe not in the same things we do because not all humans see beauty in the same things. But then why is there a need to see beauty? So we feel happiness? Then yes animals see beauty. We are animals. They might not call it beauty.....

If all of the qualities we possess are in animals, which you cannot deny because we are an animal.... Then why think that they are not present in other animals? Because they are not human? If we were talking about another race of human I would think you are trying to dehumanize them.

And also, why would it matter to us if these qualities we present in other animals? Maybe they are not, it is not as if we can go and ask them. And if we found out one way or another how would that change your view?

If you found out they did not have these feelings and emotions would that make you take a look at yours? Or if you found out they did share these emotions... what would the reaction be....

Lots of questions... and when I say “you” I visualize myself talking to everyone, not just one person.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by worlds_away]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by worlds_away
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I’d like to ask why we need a “soul”? Why can’t we just be an animal? And how does one go about classifying a soul? Or the lack of one?

[edit on 26-6-2010 by worlds_away]


Whether we call it a soul or consciousness, or even conscience it is that which effectively describes us when we are removed from our bodies, such as looking inward, when obviously we are not physically looking inward but instead contemplating ourselves. Why do we need this soul, consciousness, or conscience? Certainly we can understand why need a conscience, and yet it would seem there are those who lack one. We tend to diagnose those lacking a conscience as being sociopathic, and this is certainly counted as a disease by psychiatrists. Yet, no one can prove a conscience exists any more than they can prove a soul exists, and in terms of conscience, at best one can only point to a lack of it.


If soul and conscience are interchangeable then everyone has one. But their soul/conscience may not be the same as yours. So instead of you seeing a different soul/conscience you see a lack of one?



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


Lumps of meat? Well, I suppose physically that is all we are. That is all any living creature is physically. However, there is much more to it than that.

There is the physical and then there is the mental/spiritual side. The mental and spiritual side should not be considered one and the same because they are not. Your physical emotions are not the same as your spiritual emotions.

The only true "emotion" the spirit truly knows is the "emotion" of LOVE. Rage, happiness, anger, hate, et cetera, all die with the physical "lump of meat."

[edit on 26-6-2010 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by worlds_away
 





If soul and conscience are interchangeable then everyone has one. But their soul/conscience may not be the same as yours. So instead of you seeing a different soul/conscience you see a lack of one?


A sociopath most certainly does seem to lack a conscience, and the argument that they actually have one but it is just different than others is an advocacy of behavior quite detrimental to others.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


They lack the full range of PHYSICAL emotion. That is why it APPEARS they have no conscience.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by worlds_away
 





If soul and conscience are interchangeable then everyone has one. But their soul/conscience may not be the same as yours. So instead of you seeing a different soul/conscience you see a lack of one?


A sociopath most certainly does seem to lack a conscience, and the argument that they actually have one but it is just different than others is an advocacy of behavior quite detrimental to others.


So there is no possibility that they have a conscience but maybe it is damaged? You go straight to lack of conscience? Yet we cannot prove the existence of conscience?

I do not disagree that different consciences can cause harm. All people can cause harm. Not just people with a “lack of conscience”, as you put it.

I believe conscience comes from the brain. So if you have a brain, you have the basis for conscience. If you were lacking a brain, you might lack the basis for conscience..... But maybe not....



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by worlds_away
 


You believe conscience comes from the brain, you just can't point to where in the brain it comes from, and in asserting your belief you are no less religious about it than any person asserting their belief in soul separate from their physical body.

As to "damaged" consciences, if they are damaged, again, no one knows how to repair them.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by worlds_away
 


You believe conscience comes from the brain, you just can't point to where in the brain it comes from, and in asserting your belief you are no less religious about it than any person asserting their belief in soul separate from their physical body.

As to "damaged" consciences, if they are damaged, again, no one knows how to repair them.




But we do not know that one can experience their soul without their physical body for sure. And please correct me if I am wrong.

I suppose it does not matter so much whether a persons conscience is damaged or if they have a lack of one. But why does it help us to classify some people as having a lack of conscience, or some people as having one?

I propose that it is purely for survival. If there is an individual that we believe lacks conscience, we might try to avoid them since we do not understand their motivations. Or we may not trust their motivations. It may pose a risk to our individual survival. They may seem different than us.

Yet people we see as having a conscience usually have the same motivations as ourselves and do not seem to pose a threat to us so we will continue to gravitate towards them, because we can understand them.

And I am sorry but I do not see myself as being religious about it, because I would change my mind given enough evidence.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by worlds_away]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Interesting examples you provide. Nice going. I will therefore expand a little.

Could an animal be moved by a Picasso? Be moved by a symphony?

Could an animal develop a sense of humour?



reply to post by worlds_away
 


Hi.


Since we are animals and we see beauty in things, I would assume other animals also do...

I would suggest that's based on an assumption we are no more than animals, pure and simple. (Not meaning to sound harsh, just questioning.)


But then why is there a need to see beauty?

In this context it may be a measure of something more than an a = b predictable reaction, and thus be indicative of an ability to perceive and contemplate the abstract.


If all of the qualities we possess are in animals, which you cannot deny because we are an animal.... Then why think that they are not present in other animals?

Your basic premise, which is an a priori assumption is not shared by those who see something more in mankind than in the animal world. Questions pertaining to whether an animal can appreciate the abstract or take moral decisions might help delve the depths of human consciousness in that we might ask 'Why?' where differences become apparent.


why would it matter to us if these qualities we present in other animals? Maybe they are not, it is not as if we can go and ask them. And if we found out one way or another how would that change your view?

Fabulous question. I might be inclined to think more highly of animals if it transpired they possessed such qualities to some degree. It would not change my view of human beings as much more than meat.

But that's just my view. I'm interested in what others perceive too.



reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 



The only true "emotion" the spirit truly knows is the "emotion" of LOVE. Rage, happiness, anger, hate, et cetera, all die with the physical "lump of meat."

A very interesting perspective. Thanks.



[edit on 26/6/10 by pause4thought]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
As the top of the food chain, I would consider us to be toxic meat.

As you see people increasing in cancer, other diseases like STDs, and such, we do not compare to clean, edible animals.

That being said, we are polluting the animals today as we speak.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


Interesting angle. But is a toxic human a devalued human? (If not, the meat is not the essence.)



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


I agree that mankind is different from other animals. Just as all animals have differences and similarities. We know no boundaries when it comes to animals. So how do we know that we are not just an animal? Since we don’t know what the boundaries of animal are for sure? Unless we think we know everything about animals......

Why do we need to think of ourselves as more than animals? Why should we?

[edit on 26-6-2010 by worlds_away]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by worlds_away
 





But we do not know that one can experience their soul without their physical body for sure. And please correct me if I am wrong.


There are several definitions that come with the use of the word knowledge. One of those many definitions is the fact or condition of being aware of something. In order to dismiss ones knowledge of possessing a soul, one would have to necessarily dismiss that aspect of the definition of knowledge.

Knowledge is not just the sum total of what we have learned, and many people across time and across this globe know things that are in fact true, but did not know this because they learned it was true, they simply knew it was, and were able to prove its truth. If all knowledge was predicated on knowing what we have learned to be true, then science would arguably still be in the dark ages, as both Copernicus and Galileo knew that the earth revolved around the sun, ("And yet it still moves"), even though they were unable to prove it so.




I suppose it does not matter so much whether a persons conscience is damaged or if they have a lack of one. But why does it help us to classify some people as having a lack of conscience, or some people as having one?


Why does it help us to classify some people as sociopathic? For that matter, why does it help us to classify anything at all? A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet, and a chair would still be able to function as a chair without classification. We classify in order to effectively communicate with each other, and this is why A is A.




I propose that it is purely for survival. If there is an individual that we believe lacks conscience, we might try to avoid them since we do not understand their motivations. Or we may not trust their motivations. It may pose a risk to our individual survival. They may seem different than us.


Certainly survival is a primary function of all biological constructs. Indeed, it is arguable that the primary command of all biological constructs is to survive, and for humans, part of that survival lies in our social nature. Sociopath's are anti-social and arguably anti-survival. We do not just avoid the sociopath, we will act against that sociopath in self defense if necessary. The social pro survival person does not have a proclivity to find themselves in prison, but the sociopath does. This makes a strong argument as to why we need a conscience.

Further, does everything we do constitute survival? Do we read or construct poetry out of a need to survive? Do we admire or paint the painting in order to survive? Do we compose or listen to music simply as a method of survival? Survival is a biological function, and the basic fight or flight mechanism we all seem to have belongs with hard wiring in our biology, but is our proclivity to create art simply programming or is it something more? Is our proclivity to philosophize hard wiring or is it more?




And I am sorry but I do not see myself as being religious about it, because I would change my mind given enough evidence.


How far are you willing to go in making your arguments? Would you be dogmatic about them, or are you willing to allow for other possibilities outside of the physical realm that can not be so easily identified and classified? If you are willing to allow for the possibility of a soul, even more, the probability of soul, while still asking the questions you ask and making the arguments you make, I would agree that you are not being religious about it. However, if you would dismiss the possibility, or probability of a soul while continuing to make your arguments as to why you dismiss a soul, this is fairly construed as dogma.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 






If so, why not cook your neighbour? After all you are hungry.

What difference does it make that it's your grandma? Just a lump of meat...


Gee never thought of it that way.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by worlds_away
 


Distinctly searching questions.


I agree that mankind may be different than other animals. Just as all animals have differences and similarities.

Does this imply man is intrinsically of no greater worth than an animal? If there is no great gulf why not roast your neighbour on a spit? (Just attempting to get to the heart of the matter.)


We know no boundaries when it comes to animals.

But what some have been pointing out is that there are boundaries. Abstract thought, a sense of justice and humour to name just a few. (Unless there is evidence to the contrary.)


So how do we know that we are not just an animal?

One starting point might be the faculties humans possess which take them beyond the here and now.


...Unless we think we know everything about animals...

I agree we don't. But they're well worth exploring.


Why do we need to think of ourselves as more than animals? Why should we?

Well for a start we eat them. (Or most of us do.) We don't eat Grandma.


[edit on 26/6/10 by pause4thought]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Interesting examples you provide. Nice going. I will therefore expand a little.

Could an animal be moved by a Picasso? Be moved by a symphony?

Could an animal develop a sense of humour?


Picasso is a human, so I doubt they would enjoy Picassos art, Bonobos though actually create their own music and listen to it, it relaxes them

What's next, Can an animal drive a car to work? What do animals have to do for you to relate to them and realize we are animals?
Ah, nevermind then, apparantly pidgeons can tell the difference between different artists, including Picasso

www.baycitizen.org...

That link will also touch more on musical animals too.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by hippomchippo]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Under times of stress, I find solace in the idea that I am a conscious
being housed in a sack of meat. I describe my body to others, as
my metaphoric car. I teach my children this same trick, as in "Honey,
your body is like your car, or anything else you own. You have power
over it and you can force it to do whatever it is capable of. Drive it
safely and keep it well fueled."

As humans we teach our bodies to perform tricks, like singing, dancing,
running fast. If you are able to teach your particular body to perform better
than most you will be successful. This is true for your car's brain as
well. What you are able to learn depends on how well you are able to
control your car, as well as what model of car you have been given, ie., some
are given brains that do not learn well, and some are. Likewise, with
all other talents.

As you may guess, my kids look at me funny sometimes, but eventually
they all come around to an understanding of my point. Success in life boils
down to one's ability to assess his body's capabilities and then, using this
knowledge, accentuate the strengths and downplay the weaknesses.

I tell my kids (and anyone who will listen) the same thing. Your body needs
the correct fuel to run efficiently. It needs maintenance, but ultimately
you are only connected to it for a short period of time. So use it to
your advantage, and understand YOU control IT, and not the other way
around...this idea has served me well thru life.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Welcome back. (NB - the first link needs a fix.)


Picasso is a human, so I doubt they would enjoy Picassos art

Quite so. But would the fact art involves an interpretation, a reflection ever move an animal in that it might empathize?


Heres a nice link on animals enjoying music...

I have no doubt they might even sway to a rhythm. But would they be transported on hearing a blue note? Or perceive the melancholy of The Moonlight Sonata?


What's next, Can an animal drive a car to work? What do animals have to do for you to relate to them and realize we are animals?

This misses the point, I suggest. We're talking metaphysics here.


Ah, nevermind then, apparantly pidgeons can tell the difference between different artists, including Picasso

You could probably train a worm to tell the difference (via the prevalence of raised paint strokes). Not the same as appreciation or being moved, is it?



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Welcome back. (NB - the first link needs a fix.)


Picasso is a human, so I doubt they would enjoy Picassos art

Quite so. But would the fact art involves an interpretation, a reflection ever move an animal in that it might empathize?


Heres a nice link on animals enjoying music...

I have no doubt they might even sway to a rhythm. But would they be transported on hearing a blue note? Or perceive the melancholy of The Moonlight Sonata?


What's next, Can an animal drive a car to work? What do animals have to do for you to relate to them and realize we are animals?

This misses the point, I suggest. We're talking metaphysics here.


Ah, nevermind then, apparantly pidgeons can tell the difference between different artists, including Picasso

You could probably train a worm to tell the difference (via the prevalence of raised paint strokes). Not the same as appreciation or being moved, is it?

So you want me to read the minds of animals and tell you their detailed thoughts as they listen to music, etc?
Well I can't do that.
Sorry, we don't know if they're loving a certain note or the whole melody, but we do know they like both music and art, and can have a sense of humor, unfortunantly, they can't speak english to tell you what parts they like.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by hippomchippo]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join