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

[Laird]

I don't think that that train of thought is faulty, I just don't see where it gets us. This answer to the question of the origins of abstract thought and language doesn't seem to have any bearing on the extent of abstract thought and language in the animal kingdom. Surely, an animal soul could equally have had abstract thought imbued in it prior to (re)incarnation, and surely the - what looks to be something like - language of whales and dolphins might, too, have been already present when their souls manifested into their bodies?

This is doubly so if we allow for reincarnation across species: in that case, the same soul could incarnate as both a human, and - later or before - as, say, a horse - and surely it would have the same capacity for abstract thought and language in each case as a soul if not in that embodiment itself?

"This would be expected if early man became fully human via becoming the vehicles for immaterial spirit.

If this train of thought is faulty, please point out where. "

I consider the belief that only modern man has an immaterial spirit to be an unsubstantiated assertion, and indeed I find it somehow more than a little unsatisfactory. My own counter-assertion is that all life is a vehicle for immaterial spirit.

I consider the belief that only modern man has an immaterial spirit to be an unsubstantiated assertion, and indeed I find it somehow more than a little unsatisfactory. My own counter-assertion is that all life is a vehicle for immaterial spirit.

I tend to agree but it discombobulates my brain trying to think of the implications of that and how it actually might work.

[Laird]

I consider the belief that only modern man has an immaterial spirit to be an unsubstantiated assertion

Oh, gosh, I hadn't even cottoned on that that was what was being asserted - that's how foreign the idea is to me. Why on Earth would only humans have a soul? What a strange idea.

But of course we can have abstract thoughts without using numbers, can't we ? Hasn't it been accepted if not proven that dolphins 
feel sympathy for humans being attacked by sharks, for instance. We're all familiar with the scenario, I don't need to link to an example. Is that really just a coincidental happy accident, as some would say.

Many creatures have shown sympathy and empathy but I have never thought of that as abstract thought.  I was thinking solely of concepts separated from specific events.

I consider the belief that only modern man has an immaterial spirit to be an unsubstantiated assertion, and indeed I find it somehow more than a little unsatisfactory. My own counter-assertion is that all life is a vehicle for immaterial spirit.

I don't think my words imply that. Certainly animals can be expected to have some sort of spirit or soul - there are many instances of mediumistic observation of and contact with animal spirits. It is my intuitive feeling when I regard my own pet dogs. What is noted is simply that when it comes to mankind versus animals, there are still profound differences. With language there seems to be a fundamental difference of kind not just of degree. And language seems to be key to abstract thought.

There are indeed some big problems in regarding animals in general as having souls, one being the boggle factor in considering the countless millions of factory farm animals being raised for food now and for many centuries. Aside from how appalling their suffering is, how can each of these chickens, pigs and cattle have individual souls? The implications of the animal soul idea are hard to swallow.

[Laird]

The implications of the animal soul idea are hard to swallow.

Why? What's the difference to the idea of a human soul? I mean, I can understand conceptual difficulties with the idea of vegetative souls given that many plants are so readily regrown from clippings, or constituted of a conjoining of multiple individuals (such as grass) - but surely there is no more conceptual difficulty with an animal soul than with a human soul? What's especially difficult about it?

The very young toddler's abstract mental abilities are of course very limited. One major reason is language which is not yet manifested in the developing child. Do you disagree that language (which is inherently abstract) is absent in animals and is a unique capacity of human beings?

At the very least gorillas can learn sign language IIRC.

Though I would wonder what a bee's dance is if not some form of communication about geolocation? Also whales and dolphins seem to have some language capacity?

On the subject of animal thinking, according to Michael Tymn, in the book “Life Eternal,” which contains accounts of mediumistic communications from William T. Stead through the mediumship of Hester Dowden, Stead says that the famous Elberfeld Horses were controlled by spirit intelligences with mathematical education (page 84). It certainly is very hard to believe it was the horses themselves that were manifesting sophisticated mental mathematical abilities. 

But mediums and those who communicate through them say all sorts of things about spirits and the afterlife, for example disagreements regarding reincarnation. According to Psi Encyclopedia there have been mediumship cases involving deceased animals though I don't believe they have examples listed. Still digging to see.

I think the challenge here is what is the threshold for mathematical capability? Does it indicate a ranking of souls? And those born mentally disabled incapable of mathematical thought or anything but a base use of language, are they lesser incarnates?

Given the fact that research shows language use in animals as well as some capacity for abstract though, and the nature of abstractions as related to the Universals, it seems more likely that first person PoVs have capacities that are limited by the filter of the brain. Notice how pigeons and bees have some capacity for abstract thought despite brain structures quite different from primates.

It seems that this reasoning probably also applies to language. It is a fact that leading linguists like Chomsky have asserted that the field of language evolution has been barren of useful or even promising theories. Investigators in the field despite many years of work have not been able to come up with any viable theory of language evolution. It is as if it emerged fully formed with early man. This would be expected if early man became fully human via becoming the vehicles for immaterial spirit.

There's definitely some relationship between consciousness and brain structure, and it would be odd if there was some discontinuity between humans and the rest of evolving life on this planet.

I suspect the way things work is that first person PoVs choose or are forced into bodies that have varied capacities, and that evolution is meant to at least partially accommodate this process. The choice of body may have something to do with karma but it might just be curiosity or a personal journey of the Higher Self.

Many creatures have shown sympathy and empathy but I have never thought of that as abstract thought.  I was thinking solely of concepts separated from specific events.

You're probably literally correct but I think sympathy for others could be classed as abstract in that the thinker, be it a human (more likely of course) or an intelligent animal could conceivably be making a judgement based on it's principles ? I don't want to push this though because I don't want to end up talking bollocks about something which is a mystery, really.

Why? What's the difference to the idea of a human soul? I mean, I can understand conceptual difficulties with the idea of vegetative souls given that many plants are so readily regrown from clippings, or constituted of a conjoining of multiple individuals (such as grass) - but surely there is no more conceptual difficulty with an animal soul than with a human soul? What's especially difficult about it?

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.