In the Animal Kingdom, the Astonishing Power of the Number Instinct

Example: like I said, the idea of endless generations of countless millions of very short-lived animal souls in factory farms across most countries including our own is hard to swallow. If the purpose of soul incarnation is Earth experience and learning, this sure looks like countless mistakes being made by these souls - what sort of learning and what sort of experiences are these? What is conceptually difficult isn't that it should be possible, it is considering what sense it would make in very many cases. Surely the spiritual order of reality must make some sort of sense. Of course, I suppose it doesn't have to make any sort of human sense.

What about the paranormal, taken as a whole, indicates a purpose that would make sense?

It seems to me the chaos that infects this life extends to the next, though it does seem there are benevolent entities that wish to aid others...

'...With folded hands I beseech
The Buddhas of all directions
To shine the lamp of Dharma
For all bewildered in misery’s gloom.

With folded hands I beseech
The Conquerors who wish to pass away,
To please remain for countless aeons
And not to leave the world in darkness...'
  -Shantideva, A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life

And I'd hate to think all the horrors of this world are just a game or virtual reality training exercise for the next life which is the "real one" ->

“If this life is not a real fight, in which something is eternally gained for the universe by success, it is no better than a game of private theatricals from which one may withdraw at will. But it feels like a real fight...”

― William James

[Laird]

Example: like I said, the idea of endless generations of countless millions of very short-lived animal souls in factory farms across most countries including our own is hard to swallow. If the purpose of soul incarnation is Earth experience and learning, this sure looks like countless mistakes being made by these souls - what sort of learning and what sort of experiences are these? What is conceptually difficult isn't that it should be possible, it is considering what sense it would make in very many cases. Surely the spiritual order of reality must make some sort of sense. Of course, I suppose it doesn't have to make any sort of human sense.

Thanks for elaborating.

I tend to see things dualistically, so for me the sense of the spiritual/metaphysical "order" of reality is partly as a battlefield - and on a battlefield, much cruelty or at least suffering is not only possible but expected.

But let's say we did decide that animals have no souls - it would nevertheless be impossible to deny that they are sentient, and thus that they are suffering greatly to no apparent end in any case. So, I'm not sure that this line of thinking ultimately supports your case.

I guess that this suggests the question: what do you mean by "soul" in the first place, and, especially, how do you distinguish it from, and how do you relate it to, consciousness itself?

Thanks for elaborating.

I tend to see things dualistically, so for me the sense of the spiritual/metaphysical "order" of reality is partly as a battlefield - and on a battlefield, much cruelty or at least suffering is not only possible but expected.

But let's say we did decide that animals have no souls - it would nevertheless be impossible to deny that they are sentient, and thus that they are suffering greatly to no apparent end in any case. So, I'm not sure that this line of thinking ultimately supports your case.

I guess that this suggests the question: what do you mean by "soul" in the first place, and, especially, how do you distinguish it from, and how do you relate it to, consciousness itself?

The concept of 'soul' essentially is of the spiritual essence of an individual, which is conscious, immaterial, independent of the physical body and which persists indefinitely in the spiritual realm of existence. It is separate and apart from the individual sentient selfhood of the individual physical  animal. This is general enough to certainly include the possibility of group souls, where the soul consciousness is not identified with and does not consist of just the individual physical animal, but a (large) group of them. In that case the individual animal would not survive physical death as a unique conscious being. I think this is the more likely case with many animals.

The inescapable sentience of individual animals (that allows them to suffer greatly whether from natural circumstances or being raised and killed in factory farms) would be seen as the humanly appalling and deplorable result of design decisions for physical reality long ago made by very powerful and advanced spiritual beings.

The inescapable sentience of individual animals (that allows them to suffer greatly whether from natural circumstances or being raised and killed in factory farms) would be seen as the humanly appalling and deplorable result of design decisions for physical reality long ago made by very powerful and advanced spiritual beings.

Isn't this the consequentialist fallacy, where something cannot be true because the implications are terrible?

I think it is pretty clear that whoever - if anyone - designed reality they were not concerned with suffering or lacked the foresight to consider it. Evolution itself is an engine powered by countless deaths, and human suffering is hardly absent from the world.

The other option is this reality has no substantial negative effects on any consciousness that incarnates into it, but that also seems like the kind of belief one takes on to rationalize suffering. At the very least reincarnation suggests the traumas of a past life can influence the journey of the soul.

Example: like I said, the idea of endless generations of countless millions of very short-lived animal souls in factory farms across most countries including our own is hard to swallow. If the purpose of soul incarnation is Earth experience and learning, this sure looks like countless mistakes being made by these souls - what sort of learning and what sort of experiences are these? What is conceptually difficult isn't that it should be possible, it is considering what sense it would make in very many cases. Surely the spiritual order of reality must make some sort of sense. Of course, I suppose it doesn't have to make any sort of human sense.

This line of reasoning seems to be taking victim-blaming to a new level. It seems you are supposing that all those suffering animals are responsible for their own situation. And thereby exonerating the truly spiritual humans from having to accept any responsibility for their actions. Somehow that logic seems broken.

There must be a better way to fix it than to assume that that animals have no souls and are incapable of suffering.

Example: like I said, the idea of endless generations of countless millions of very short-lived animal souls in factory farms across most countries including our own is hard to swallow. If the purpose of soul incarnation is Earth experience and learning, this sure looks like countless mistakes being made by these souls - what sort of learning and what sort of experiences are these? What is conceptually difficult isn't that it should be possible, it is considering what sense it would make in very many cases. Surely the spiritual order of reality must make some sort of sense. Of course, I suppose it doesn't have to make any sort of human sense.

This line of reasoning seems to be taking victim-blaming to a new level. It seems you are supposing that all those suffering animals are responsible for their own situation. And thereby exonerating the truly spiritual humans from having to accept any responsibility for their actions. Somehow that logic seems broken.

There must be a better way to fix it than to assume that that animals have no souls and are incapable of suffering.

Isn't this the consequentialist fallacy, where something cannot be true because the implications are terrible?

I think it is pretty clear that whoever - if anyone - designed reality they were not concerned with suffering or lacked the foresight to consider it. Evolution itself is an engine powered by countless deaths, and human suffering is hardly absent from the world.

The other option is this reality has no substantial negative effects on any consciousness that incarnates into it, but that also seems like the kind of belief one takes on to rationalize suffering. At the very least reincarnation suggests the traumas of a past life can influence the journey of the soul.

I'm hardly saying that physical reality, evidently being not intended or designed or created by some powerful spiritual beings so as to eliminate or prevent suffering, is a bad thing and therefore it isn't true: I'm saying that that is true about it, and therefore the original designers must have been very far removed from any concern over animal (or human) suffering. Very far from having human concerns. We need to accept that as an unfortunate fact of our existence.

This line of reasoning seems to be taking victim-blaming to a new level. It seems you are supposing that all those suffering animals are responsible for their own situation. And thereby exonerating the truly spiritual humans from having to accept any responsibility for their actions. Somehow that logic seems broken.

There must be a better way to fix it than to assume that that animals have no souls and are incapable of suffering.

You misunderstood my post. Perhaps I was not clear enough.

Just because I cited humanly-caused mass suffering on the part of some food animals, this did not imply that they are themselves responsible for this. That's obviously ridiculous. And I hardly exonerate humans of responsibility for this appalling situation. I just don't know if there is any realistic solution.

Secondly, I don't assume animals have no souls - I just don't know if that is the case, or if it is only in some cases, or if they have souls only in the sense of group souls. I certainly never said or intended to say that animals are incapable of suffering. That view would be very obviously wrong whether or not animals have souls. And I certainly didn't claim to have any fix for the situation.

[Laird]

The concept of 'soul' essentially is of the spiritual essence of an individual, which is conscious, immaterial, independent of the physical body and which persists indefinitely in the spiritual realm of existence. It is separate and apart from the individual sentient selfhood of the individual physical  animal. This is general enough to certainly include the possibility of group souls, where the soul consciousness is not identified with and does not consist of just the individual physical animal, but a (large) group of them. In that case the individual animal would not survive physical death as a unique conscious being. I think this is the more likely case with many animals.

The inescapable sentience of individual animals (that allows them to suffer greatly whether from natural circumstances or being raised and killed in factory farms) would be seen as the humanly appalling and deplorable result of design decisions for physical reality long ago made by very powerful and advanced spiritual beings.

Thanks for your response. Sorry to have taken so long to get back to you. I got distracted and it slipped my mind.

I am not sure that a conception of a conscious soul in conjunction with a conscious physical self makes much sense when it comes to a coherent view of selfhood. By my definition, a self is the subject of consciousness, and there is a one-to-one mapping between a self and its consciousness. Your model seems to imply at least two parallel consciousnesses - that of the soul and that of the physical self - which by my definition entails two distinct selves. The physical self - whether that of a human, animal, or plant - then, is presumably annihilated at death on your view, whereas the soul self persists.

It is worse on a conception of group souls, in which the physical self does not even have its own, unique counterpart in a soul self, from whose permanency as its unique counterpart it might take some comfort as it perishes - instead, upon its annihilation, the sorry situation is that the other (also annihilated) physical selves in its group have equal relationship with the counterpart conscious (soul) self which persists.

Why would we posit dual selves (consciousnesses) when one is enough? I understand a view that the physical body-brain complex to some extent mirrors or hosts an enduring self, but not a view that this physical body-brain complex is also a (conscious) self of its own.

Regarding your point about animal suffering: as Sci points out, it is hardly the case that humanity is in contrast free from suffering. Look at all the wars, famines, poverty, diseases, abuses, and other human ills spread throughout history. This doesn't seem to be a meaningful criterion on which to distinguish humans from animals when it comes to the coherence and plausibility of the notion that individuals have souls.

Most importantly given that: if, as you suggest, a soul is simply the spiritual essence of an individual, then there really does appear to be no basis on which to distinguish humans from other animals in this regard. Since you allow that animals are sentient, then why would we presume that they have any less of a (conscious) spiritual essence than humans? Why would we propose that whereas humans have an individual soul, animals have group souls? It strikes me that to do so is an awful bigotry with no justification.

[Laird]

To add to my response, nbtruthman: isn't your positing of a conscious ("sentient') physical self inconsistent with your critique of materialism on the basis of the hard problem? (A critique with which, as you know, I agree). Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "the individual sentient selfhood of the individual physical  animal"?