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

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"?

Can't animals have a conscious self but also not an immortal one?

Or am I missing to what you're referring?

[Laird]

Can't animals have a conscious self but also not an immortal one?

Yes, that seems possible. Perhaps my question was ill-conceived. Maybe a better way to frame it is this:

That conscious self would have to have a non-physical origin, and since we seem to be presuming a spiritual origin for consciousness on nbtruthman's view, then presumably the spiritual designers of reality chose to deny animals an immortal self, such that when they die, that's it for them. Isn't this widely considered to be one of the drawbacks of physicalism - that biological death is annihilation of the self? (And yes, I know that as you have pointed out there are variants of physicalism where this is not necessarily the case, but generally it is). Why would the designers make that choice?

Yes, that seems possible. Perhaps my question was ill-conceived. Maybe a better way to frame it is this:

That conscious self would have to have a non-physical origin, and since we seem to be presuming a spiritual origin for consciousness on nbtruthman's view, then presumably the spiritual designers of reality chose to deny animals an immortal self, such that when they die, that's it for them. Isn't this widely considered to be one of the drawbacks of physicalism - that biological death is annihilation of the self? (And yes, I know that as you have pointed out there are variants of physicalism where this is not necessarily the case, but generally it is). Why would the designers make that choice?

Perhaps the designers might have chosen the approach of a group soul for most animals, because the physical animal vehicle was too small and simple to manifest complex sentient awareness. I get back to the horrid example of the countless millions of factory-farm raised chickens. Are we supposed to believe that each and every such short-lived little chicken, limited to a tiny space in the factory all its life, is a fully aware spiritual entity? I would rather not believe so. Of course there is the old saying, if wishes were horses beggars would ride. Anyway, with animals there probably must be some ultimately spiritual or immaterial essence, but it seems to me that with many it must be very small and simple relative to that of humans, and manifest in the spiritual realm mostly through its group soul. 

Alternatively, since this is a sort of brain-storming session, I don't see why the designers couldn't have made the choice of no afterlife for animals, given their evident indifference to animal (and human) suffering over the long process of periodically or occasionally intervening in evolution on the physical Earth. Human values seem to have been of little concern to these entities. How such a pitiless and amoral higher reality could relate to the realm experienced during so many NDEs is another matter. The DMT world might be closer. 

Another factor is that aside from all this, I think that probably most lower animals, since they have no concept of death (being unable to think abstractly), correspondingly probably have no fear of death and therefore don't suffer unnecessarily from the fear of it. I don't know of any research that might have impinged on this.

If, say, chickens have souls; how far down the chain does that continue?  Insects? Cellular-level animals?

I don't have a view on it, but these questions struck me as I was reading the dialogue.

If, say, chickens have souls; how far down the chain does that continue?  Insects? Cellular-level animals?

I don't have a view on it, but these questions struck me as I was reading the dialogue.

Depends on what a "soul" is. Some possibilities:

1. A soul is a non-spatial (or perhaps omni-spatial) first person PoV that is, when completely non-local, infinite in is awareness. However when it incarnates as a living thing the structures of that life constrain this awareness. This is something like the Ladder of Being in Jainism, where consciousness can move down to the lowest levels or up to the level of gods. Perhaps another way of thinking about it is VR games where you'd enter into different states of consciousness - at the germ level you're asleep and possibly dreaming while acting on base instincts whereas at the god level you might experience qualia across different Heavens and Hells.

2. Entities can have physical, vital, and mental bodies. The physical is the panpsychic level of atoms, the vital the level of living things, and the mental the next level of being. The entities at the vital level organize the physical, and so "cell spirits" organize atoms to form cellular bodies, and souls at the mental level organize the cells into bodies.

3. The soul is the form of the human body. Similar to the above, save there is no panpsychic level of atoms nor are there planes of reality. Here all living things are a unity of form and matter, but the form of the human is the only one that participates in the Logical/Mathematical Universals and so it's the only one that's immortal. Of course this idea will likely fade away as we go deeper into animal cognition research.

4. There is only one soul, in the sense of a singular Ur-Consciousness. Living things individuate but this is really an illusion, as such all living things are immortal and transient depending on how you look at it. The challenge here is the "illusion" of the subjective individual is the only consciousness usually known, so it is hard to explain how its illusory. That said it could still be transient, though we have a lot of Survival cases that say otherwise.

I'm more inclined to think 1 or 2 is right, in part because nobody has a good explanation for how you get individual first person PoVs. Yet nobody save perhaps the Jains and a few others consider that these PoVs have always been around, Uncreated.

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.

Re. there being a separate conscious sentient human self and also at the same time a spiritual essence called a soul: this may seem unnecessary, but it is necessary from one perspective - that of the human conscious self contemplating many New Age and other teachings that claim that we as our souls choose our next lives - their place and time and parents. There is some evidence of this from between-lives reincarnation memories. If this is true, "we as our souls" often choose lives of abysmal suffering through poverty, inherited genetic defects and diseases, and many other circumstances that could easily be avoided if the soul had knowledge of these circumstances and had any regard for the suffering that would ensue for its human self. 

Since certainly we as human beings would never choose such things, the claim that we literally are our souls must be faulty. There seems to be a vast gulf between soul consciousness and human consciousness, to the point that for a practical matter we are really talking about separate beings. At least it seems to be a logical conclusion. I would like to see some plausible alternatives in the premises of this argument that would change its conclusion.

[Laird]

There seems to be a vast gulf between soul consciousness and human consciousness, to the point that for a practical matter we are really talking about separate beings. At least it seems to be a logical conclusion.

It does, given your premises. It also, though, seems to be a peculiar one, because it (1) seems to imply that human consciousness is annihilated at death and (2) suggests (if I might put it this starkly and harshly) a view in which a tyrannical being (a soul) often places another effectively separate being (a human) into a life so horrific that that other being (the human) would not ever choose it for him/herself, and all for its (the soul's) own benefit, since the human is annihilated at death and thus cannot derive any lasting benefit. So, we seem to be forced to conclude that souls are selfish and sadistic, which is an... unusual... conclusion given the typical connotations of the word "soul".

Regarding your earlier post, I've taken a while to respond to it because I wanted to do so tactfully, and it hasn't been clear to me how to go about that at the same time as speaking (what I believe to be) truth. I think that you're a well-intentioned person, so I don't want to come down hard on you (you're also a valuable contributor to this forum, but that hasn't been a factor in my deliberations).

Perhaps I should simply trust my ability to communicate and say what I think needs to be said as tactfully as I can, so, here goes:

the physical animal vehicle was too small and simple to manifest complex sentient awareness.

Anyway, with animals there probably must be some ultimately spiritual or immaterial essence, but it seems to me that with many it must be very small and simple relative to that of humans

Honestly, this comes across to me as terribly uncharitable towards our animal brothers and sisters. Your key choice of words for the souls of animals is "small and simple" (relative to humans). There are (at least) a couple of reasons to challenge this rather unkind view:

1. It doesn't seem to be implied by the remainder of your contentions. On your view, affirmed above, the soul is essentially separate from the individual consciousness with which it is associated (whether that individual consciousness is that of an animal of the human or non-human variety), so there seems to be no prima facie reason for the size or complexity of the soul to correlate with that of the individual consciousness, even if we assume that the individual consciousnesses of human animals are "bigger" and "more complex" than those of non-human animals.
   
2. But there doesn't in any case seem to be a reason to assume that the consciousnesses of non-human animals are "smaller and simpler" (with regards to soulfulness) than those of human animals. Presumably, the basis of the claim that they are is that humans are more capable of symbolic representation, manipulation, and communication - but is this a good basis for the claim? When I hear the word "soul", I don't automatically think of the intellectual capacity to manipulate symbols - I think of the big-hearted capacity to feel, love, experience, and empathise deeply. There seems to me to be every reason to believe that animals are no less capable of this than humans - and often far more.
   

I get back to the horrid example of the countless millions of factory-farm raised chickens. Are we supposed to believe that each and every such short-lived little chicken, limited to a tiny space in the factory all its life, is a fully aware spiritual entity? I would rather not believe so.

Presumably, as you seem to be a basically decent person, you would rather not believe so because it would make their suffering all that much more horrific, and you don't want to countenance that level of horrific suffering. The problem with this approach is that your belief is probably wrong, and that in promulgating it, you are being counter-productive: you are offering a justification to those who take part in this cruelty - they can then say, "Hey, animals don't even have souls. Or, at most they have a group soul. So, why does anybody care what we do to them?"

I think that probably most lower animals, since they have no concept of death (being unable to think abstractly), correspondingly probably have no fear of death and therefore don't suffer unnecessarily from the fear of it. I don't know of any research that might have impinged on this.

You don't need research - just watch the animals lined up at the slaughterhouse. That should rid you of the mistaken belief that animals have no fear of death. As for their being unable to think abstractly, I think that you would be better off suggesting the possibility that (at worst) they are unable to think in symbols, because Typoz and I earlier in this thread pointed out to you that abstract non-symbolic thought is possible, and there is every reason to believe that animals are (at least) capable of such a thing.

Laird,

"It does (seem to be that there is a vast gulf between human and soul consciousness), given your premises."

I don't like this conclusion any more than you do, and for just the tip of the iceberg it conflicts with my intuition and (more importantly) with very many NDE experiences, but the conclusion seems forced by the sheer logic of the evidence. Leaving a condition of uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. I notice that you haven't responded with some plausible reasons why my premises are actually invalid. I actually would like it if you would.

"When I hear the word "soul", I don't automatically think of the intellectual capacity to manipulate symbols - I think of the big-hearted capacity to feel, love, experience, and empathise deeply. There seems to me to be every reason to believe that animals are no less capable of this than humans - and often far more."

As I have remarked is the case with me and the notion that each and every factory farm raised chicken is a fully aware sentient soul being (in the absence of significant evidence to the contrary I would rather not believe that), your statement about the deep and complex consciousness of animals is also an expression of what you would like to believe without much evidence.

Concerning fear of death and abstract thought in animals, your point is well taken about abstract non-symbolic thought being possible in at least some (higher) animals. But ultimately, I think this is also a case where yours is a closely and dearly held belief system. I respect that, but note that from my perspective it is without too much evidence.

Pretty sure NDEs / Mediumship / Apparitions had cases where animals who had passed away appear?

AFAIK there's no evidential case of animal to human reincarnation.

[Laird]

I notice that you haven't responded with some plausible reasons why my premises are actually invalid. I actually would like it if you would.

I think I gave a basic reason why in post #39, whose topical content begins: "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."

To elaborate a little on that in the context of your request for plausible reasons: your argument begins with the premise that each human has a (unique) soul, and essential to the definition of a soul is, in my view, that it is the (or at least a) core aspect of a being's selfhood - but your argument ends up concluding that each human's "soul" is a totally separate being from the human. This is incoherent: that which you end up describing does not meet the essential definition of a soul, and so your conclusion contradicts your first premise, or is at least analytically false (because self-contradictory). "One's soul is not a soul". Hmm.

Do you see what I mean?

This problem is evident in your post above (#46):

Since certainly we as human beings would never choose such things, the claim that we literally are our souls must be faulty.

But this claim cannot be faulty because it is true by definition!

Given this, we can reframe your argument as sketched out in that same post something like this:

1. According to New Age and other teachings, and such lines of evidence as between-lives reincarnation memories, each person as a soul chooses his/her (its) next life - place and time and parents.
   
2. Thus, according to these teachings and lines of evidence, some souls choose lives of abominable suffering and ghastly horror.
   
3. However, once a soul is actually incarnated in this physical world experiencing such a life of misery, it would definitely not choose that life.
   
4. Therefore, either these teachings and lines of evidence are mistaken/misleading, and no soul chooses a life of utter misery (perhaps, instead, souls are forced or coerced into such lives), or, prior to incarnation, souls have a different perspective in which they see a good reason to incarnate into a life of misery that (the good reason) they do not have access to once incarnated.
   

Yes?

your statement about the deep and complex consciousness of animals is also an expression of what you would like to believe without much evidence.

I think the problem is cultural. Western culture has the awful legacy of Descartes, who maintained that animals were insentient automata, and thus incapable of both suffering and pleasure (where was the evidence for that?). Western culture also tends to approach the world and everything other than humans as commodities to be exploited - although historically it has commoditised, and in certain senses even in the current day it still commoditises, humans too. It goes without saying that that which is a commodity tends to be devalued as an end in itself. And then there is the legacy from ideas like the Great Chain of Being, in which certain life forms are "superior" to other life forms, and there is a hierarchy of value - facilitating a view that at a certain point "lower" on the hierarchy, beings cease to have souls.

Perhaps these sort of aspects of Western culture have influenced your view of animals?

Indigenous cultures have a much richer view of non-human life, including animals. They tend, as best I can tell, to see life as a web/network of peers rather than a hierarchy of "superior" and "inferior" beings. Some of them take on animal totems in recognition of the inherent value and unique traits of animal beings. Their shamans communicate with animal spirits.

This makes much more sense to me.

But you want evidence! OK, well, for a start, let's revisit a video that probably everybody here has already seen, "The incredible story of how leopard Diablo became Spirit":



This is an excerpt from the full documentary about Anna Breytenbach entitled “The Animal Communicator”.

Especially relevant in that video is the evidence that animals can communicate telepathically in symbols of a sort (images), as well as that animal beings such as Spirit are immensely powerful in a spiritual sense. I think it's hard if not impossible to deny animals their souls after watching this video.