Morality or Obedience?

[Tassman]

Tass are you being dense on purpose? I said I have no problem with animals having subjective experiences.

Do they have a soul or are humans unique in this regard?

But I don't KNOW that they do, and neither do you. And if they do that I don't know if it is anything like ours.

Heck I can't even demonstrate that your subjective experience is the same as mine

Nonsense, how is that possible even in principle without self reporting?

See above.

[Tassman]

So would you think that the experience of "red" is different for each of us? Would you guess that we are all experiencing a different color while calling it "red."?

It doesn't really matter whether what you call red is qualitatively the same as what I call red. We both end up believing that our own perception of "red" is red.

[seer]

Do they have a soul or are humans unique in this regard?

Animals are souls, like humans are souls, but that is not the spirit. Humans have a spirit, created in the image of God.


BS Tass, you have no idea what these chimps actually feel inside: Again, If my dog seems sad for instance, how do you know he is really having a subjective experiences of sadness, rather that just showing behavior that had adaptive benefit, with no subjective experience attached?

[Tassman]

Animals are souls, like humans are souls, but that is not the spirit.

Souls are defined as "the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal" - Oxford Dictionary. So we will be seeing our chimp cousins in heaven shall we?

Humans have a spirit, created in the image of God.

Do we really! How do you know this?

BS Tass, you have no idea what these chimps actually feel inside:

Again, If my dog seems sad for instance, how do you know he is really having a subjective experiences of sadness, rather that just showing behavior that had adaptive benefit, with no subjective experience attached?

As much as we love our pet dogs, they are not as close to us biologically as the great apes, which are our closest living relatives in the animal kingdom.

[seer]

Souls are defined as "the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal" - Oxford Dictionary. So we will be seeing our chimp cousins in heaven shall we?

That is not the only way scripture uses it. It can be interchangeable with the spirit, and if I remember corectly in the Old Testament animals are said to be souls.

Do we really! How do you know this?

The teachings of Christ and Scripture in general.

How? Did they tell you? You are only making assumptions.

As much as we love our pet dogs, they are not as close to us biologically as the great apes, which are our closest living relatives in the animal kingdom.

That is the point, you have no idea if your dog's look of "sadness" is anymore than an adaptive behavior, with no corresponding subjective sense of sadness. You can not assume that a behavior has a corresponding subjective response, for dog or for apes. It is all speculation.

[Tassman]

That is not the only way scripture uses it. It can be interchangeable with the spirit, and if I remember corectly in the Old Testament animals are said to be souls.

The human soul is generally thought of as a part of a person that is not physical and lasts eternally after the body experiences death. This was the context of my question to you of whether animals have souls, which you avoided by prevarication..

The teachings of Christ and Scripture in general.

How? Did they tell you? You are only making assumptions.

No, your belief in immortal souls is only a faith-based assumption but in the instance of experiential qualia among chimpanzees the evidence from many sources is quite conclusive. Many years of observation and behavioural experiments with chimpanzees reveal an intelligence and emotional awareness similar to humans. This is beyond question. These great apes are our closest living relatives and they demonstrably experience happiness and grief, exhibit empathy and self-awareness and they pass on cultural traditions to their young just as we humans do. Hence, as with our fellow humans, we can reasonably conclude that they are experiencing what we refer to as qualia?

[seer]

The human soul is generally thought of as a part of a person that is not physical and lasts eternally after the body experiences death. This was the context of my question to you of whether animals have souls, which you avoided by prevarication..

No Tass, it is not that clear. Scripture tells us we are body, soul and spirit, it also suggests that animals are souls. In any case as far as I know animals do not have a soul or spirit that survives death, humans do.



Well since I am a Christian, Scripture is substantive evidence. Since Christ is the authority and knows the facts.

No, your belief in immortal souls is only a faith-based assumption but in the instance of experiential qualia among chimpanzees the evidence from many sources is quite conclusive. Many years of observation and behavioural experiments with chimpanzees reveal an intelligence and emotional awareness similar to humans. This is beyond question. These great apes are our closest living relatives and they demonstrably experience happiness and grief, exhibit empathy and self-awareness and they pass on cultural traditions to their young just as we humans do. Hence, as with our fellow humans, we can reasonably conclude that they are experiencing what we refer to as qualia?

Again Tass, you can not know, no one can know, nor will they ever be able to. When a monkey looks sad is there a corresponding subjective sense of sadness, or is this simply an adaptive trait or behavior with no corresponding subjective sense like with my dog? The whole point of this is to show that there are some things that are beyond science. Qalia is one of these...

[Tassman]

No Tass, it is not that clear. Scripture tells us we are body, soul and spirit, it also suggests that animals are souls.

In any case as far as I know animals do not have a soul or spirit that survives death, humans do.

Well since I am a Christian, Scripture is substantive evidence. Since Christ is the authority and knows the facts.

Again Tass, you can not know, no one can know, nor will they ever be able to.

Once again, many years of observation and behavioural experiments with chimpanzees reveal an intelligence and emotional awareness similar to humans. These great apes are our closest living relatives and they demonstrably experience happiness and grief, exhibit empathy and self-awareness and they pass on cultural traditions to their young just as we humans do. Hence, as with our fellow humans, we can reasonably conclude that they experience what we refer to as qualia? In short we cannot know exactly what our fellow humans are experiencing qualia-wise but we can have a fair idea. And the same applies to great apes, such as chimpanzees.

When a monkey looks sad is there a corresponding subjective sense of sadness, or is this simply an adaptive trait or behavior with no corresponding subjective sense like with my dog?

The whole point of this is to show that there are some things that are beyond science. Qalia is one of these.

[seer]

Whether you call it spirit or soul, yes.

Well of course you would not see it as evidence, you are an unenlightened pagan.

Once again, many years of observation and behavioural experiments with chimpanzees reveal an intelligence and emotional awareness similar to humans. These great apes are our closest living relatives and they demonstrably experience happiness and grief, exhibit empathy and self-awareness and they pass on cultural traditions to their young just as we humans do. Hence, as with our fellow humans, we can reasonably conclude that they experience what we refer to as qualia? In short we cannot know exactly what our fellow humans are experiencing qualia-wise but we can have a fair idea. And the same applies to great apes, such as chimpanzees.

Tass, you can assume all you want. But you can not know, especially with another species.

The point is my dog shows outward signs of happiness or sadness, but I have no idea what he is actually feeling inside, if anything. Outward behavior does not and can prove inner reality.

Well that is nonsense, and impossible. Even in principle. But you have your faith...

[Tassman]

Whether you call it spirit or soul, yes.

You can call it whatever you like. The point is that you believe humans have an immaterial component that is eternal and animals do not.

Well of course you would not see it as evidence,

It is not objective evidence at all; it is merely faith-based belief...as all religious belief is, regardless of the religion.

you are an unenlightened pagan.

On the contrary! Central to enlightenment thinking is the celebration of reason and rational thinking, whereas your religious views are based upon irrational subjective beliefs that are far from enlightened.

Tass, you can assume all you want. But you can not know, especially with another species.

The point is my dog shows outward signs of happiness or sadness, but I have no idea what he is actually feeling inside, if anything. Outward behavior does not and can prove inner reality.

Well that is nonsense, and impossible. Even in principle.

Really! You need to support this bald assertion.

But you have your faith...

No, YOU

[seer]

Tass you are still reading your own subjective feelings into animals...

No Tass, you are making assumptions based on outward behavior, the same with my dog who shows sadness, happiness, intelligence, etc... And if we share 99 percent of the same DNA why don't they have cars, skyscrapers, planes, art, cave drawings, pyramids, written language, music, etc... just behind us one percent?

Really! You need to support this bald assertion.

Then tell me how in principle this can be done...

No, YOU

Right, everything you are arguing here is faith based, including your faith that science can tell us how a monkey feels.

[Tassman]

Tass you are still reading your own subjective feelings into animals...

No Tass, you are making assumptions based on outward behavior, the same with my dog who shows sadness, happiness, intelligence, etc...

Just as we do with our fellow humans, do you deny that humans experience qualia?

And if we share 99 percent of the same DNA why don't they have cars, skyscrapers, planes, art, cave drawings, pyramids, written language, music, etc... just behind us one percent?

The qualia experience is not related to technological achievements.

Then tell me how in principle this can be done...

Right, everything you are arguing here is faith based, including your faith that science can tell us how a monkey feels.

[seer]

Just as we do with our fellow humans, do you deny that humans experience qualia?

I didn't say that they don't have subjective experience, I'm saying you can not know. If a psychopath shows signs of sadness for the plight of his fellow man, does that mean he has the subjective experience of sadness?

The qualia experience is not related to technological achievements.

No, the point is, if monkeys share 99 percent of our DNA why don't they do 99 percent of the things we do? Why don't they have 99 percent of our intelligence? Having similar DNA does not mean that the DNA is arranged like ours, and if one percent makes so much difference in intelligence who knows what effect that has on subjective experience, or if there is such experience at all.

Again, how is it possible to know what a monkey actually feels? Brain scans? How would that work?

[Tassman]

I didn't say that they don't have subjective experience, I'm saying you can not know. If a psychopath shows signs of sadness for the plight of his fellow man, does that mean he has the subjective experience of sadness?

We know on the basis of observation, shared similarities and similar reactions just as we do with humans.

No, the point is, if monkeys share 99 percent of our DNA why don't they do 99 percent of the things we do? Why don't they have 99 percent of our intelligence? Having similar DNA does not mean that the DNA is arranged like ours, and if one percent makes so much difference in intelligence who knows what effect that has on subjective experience, or if there is such experience at all.

Nevertheless we are biologically very similar to our nearest primate cousins hence it is reasonable to interpret similar behaviour patterns, i.e. happiness, grief, and self-awareness, the same way we interpret those of humans.

Again, how is it possible to know what a monkey actually feels? Brain scans? How would that work?

[seer]

We know on the basis of observation, shared similarities and similar reactions just as we do with humans.

That is behavior, again Tass when my dog looks happy or sad or angry, are they having a related subjective experience, or is it merely an adaptive behavior with no real subjective experience? Who knows?

Nevertheless we are biologically very similar to our nearest primate cousins hence it is reasonable to interpret similar behaviour patterns, i.e. happiness, grief, and self-awareness, the same way we interpret those of humans.

It is not "nevertheless" - in the end primates are closer to the intelligence level of dogs than humans. And we have no more insight to the "feelings" of apes than we do with the "feelings" of dogs, or if such feelings exist at all.



Then tell me, how this can be done? How can we know if a dog or an ape is actually having a subjective experience, and more importantly what that subjective experience is LIKE for them?