 |
whiteflame55 said:
Sure.
To start, I think this question is incredibly anthropocentric. For all three aspects, we always look for activities among these beings that are similar to our own. We often cannot even understand how many creatures can be self-aware because we only know how we portray self-awareness. It's the same with environmental interaction, where we view direct responsiveness to what's around them as the only source of response. The soul is, perhaps, the most important problem here. This isn't something tangible, and more importantly, it's not something we can measure or understand. When we don't understand something in ourselves, why are we using it as a standard for other animals?
That being said, I think all three could easily apply to most animals and several can even apply to other living organisms. Most animals show a distinct self-awareness. There are a great deal of animals that show some sort of empathy or communalism, which, I would argue, is the only standard we have to go by for what a soul is. Every animal interacts with their environment (and, by the way, so do many machines). Even bacteria interact with their environment, showing taxis (or movement) towards a chemical or light source.
Even if none of these were true, however, I can't help but be concerned by the idea that sentience is only portrayed in the human sense. I'll give you an example. Some plants, like vines, climb walls. They do this because they somehow detect the presence of the wall. These plants don't have nervous systems (at least, not the type we understand) and no brains to process information if they did. Yet somehow, they know the climb the wall instead of trying to grow into it. When we don't understand how something so basic can happen, how can we understand how an animal (a more complex organism) shows awareness, or presents a soul?
|
|
