================================================ Subject: Why not Animals? From: "Creed - 7M3 - Live" To: Date: Mon 28 May 2001 17:58:12 -0400 ================================================ Speaking from a "scientific" sort of view. Our brains came from a more primative aspect. Then evolved into a more complex organ, with the ability to think of abstractions. Like the mechanics of a bird's flight and applying it to making a tool to make something that is close to the way birds fly. Anyway, we still need the emotional aspects of our brain. Which happen to be close to the same level as a cat's brain. But they have never developed the abstract concepts aspect to my knowledge. An ape can communicate through sign languages and machines. So it would be really interesting to know if it was able to suppose certain ideas. Since language is relating things to other things. (Like a graphic representation of a dog, cat, an emotional state, etc). I'd find it interesting to get the "scoop" from one of the higher animals on the subject. I didn't mean to say that the cat's brain is similar, but very close in its functioning, on the emotional plane. I also heard that most bird species do not have a sense of smell. Comparing them to humans. I always had the question as to how these birds could stand the decaying smell.(like scavenger birds) About Pantheism, I only found the word because of looking up atheism. I agree that putting a word to a personal ideal limits it to anothers concept. I guess it is best to just think of what multiple aspects of the idea of religion means to yourself. Just like you believe that we have souls. But other species do not. I'm holding onto the idea of other species having a soul. Even though I couldn't tell you about the humans having one either. Later, Jim ------------ fmn wrote: > The animals possess emotional responses, you say. Well, but then on a > much lower lever. And I also think that humans have the tendency of > interpreting things into animal behavior, like intelligence, love, > devotion, hate.. I think these are too "human" qualities. (don't take > me to literaly on the "intelligence"-of-the-animals aspect, I know > some animals do show a quite high degree of intelligence, like for > example apes and ravens - I've learnt the bit on ravens just > recently.. guess from who? ;-) but it's still nothing compared with > human intelligence) > < a cat.>> That doesn't bother me at all - this is merely a > materialistic aspect. Likewise you could say: humans are made out of > the same molecules that a chair is made of - ok. a bit too extreme of > an example, but that's the way I see it. I mean, the brain > patterns could be similar but on the other hand aren't we (living > creatures) all similar in a way: the cells, the nervous system etc. > <<"chat" with a real gorilla online.>> Now that indeed is a very > interesting one! I mean, I admit that gorillas etc. are more > intelligent than for example flies or so - so there animals differ in > their level of intelligence, but they can never come close to the > human intelligence (don't get me wrong here, I don't mean to sound > like a total animal hater, I admire animals and consider them a > miracle of God's, which brings me to the idea of pantheism - hmm... > I've never really sorted things out that clearly, I mean my opinion > on certain religious issues --> that shows I also _love_ the > imbalance, btw! :-) -- so I can't really say I'm a pantheist or I'm > not, but the idea of pantheism really appeals to me, now that you've > mentioned it. The more I think of it, the more I realize that I've > actually (maybe) been a patheist all the time - without even knowing > it consciously. I've always felt God in the things I saw around me > (especially in nature) - so I guess that comes close to pantheism. > Another thing is: I don't know if you really can label things that > easily and keep them apart: I'm a pantheist and you're a ... whatever > - maybe none of these definitions actually present my personal state > of mind and how I feel about God... (so here I end up "fighting" with > the defitions again. hehe).................. > > to be continued > -- bug, n: An elusive creature living in a program that makes it incorrect. The activity of "debugging", or removing bugs from a program, ends when people get tired of doing it, not when the bugs are removed. -- "Datamation", January 15, 1984 To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp