Chaos' lil bro Order
- 682
- 2
docbob said:In my opinion, the behaviors that do indicate higher order learning processes (thinking, wanting, and feeling beyond instinctive levels) are those displayed, for example, when a dog rushes into a burning building, awakens the family, and leads them to safety.
That's a fantastic example. To play devil's advocate for the sake of objectivity, maybe the dog saves the people because they are its sole provider, thus is ensures its own survival, or what it perceives to be its only means of survival. After all, the dog doesn't know about kennels and pet adoption, so he's really just saving his food supply, or so he thinks (perhaps!).
BTW, your post previous to that quoted was hilarious, you are a gifted writer.
@nannoh
QUOTE: However, my personal opinion, so far, of what a soul is consists of this: its a word that was coined by a group of people (church) who had no idea what made organisms work. They hadn't yet done the research it takes to find out more about the nervous system and the other pertinent facts that have to do with physiology. So here, today, we are left with the vestigial remains of an ontology spawned by an ignorance of the human body, human nature and nature in general.
Profound! I am in complete agreement with your analysis and am impressed with the clarity and conciseness of your post. Please keep them coming, this thread is really taking off with you and the good 'ole Doc fueling its fire.
In my opinion, as I think it was yours as well, none of those 'soul' definitions suffice. The first, '• the immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life
person: , is the only definition of the 4 that reflects which definition of the 'soul' we are talking about and its so vague and open to mystical interpretation that its of no real use at all. Personally I think Doc's definition of the soul as being the sum of the mind, will and emotions to be the best defintion so far.