St. Thomas on Octopus Emotions?
Recently a prominent international group of cognitive neuroscientists issued The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness proclaiming that “non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses” are conscious beings. At first I huffed because this kind of thinking gives the impression that science and religion are in conflict.
Then I found myself thinking about how St. Thomas Aquinas might have responded back in the Middle Ages when science and theology were a united search for truth. I’m no saint or high scholar, but I do find the clarity and logical exactness of his writing refreshing (unlike said declaration about octopus emotions). St. Thomas would probably have somewhat agreed.
Scholastic thought in the Middle Ages recognized that “brute” animals had internal awareness, and are able to process and respond to sensory perceptions (S.T.I-I, 75, 3). The Latin word, brūtus, refers to animals that act on physical appetites such as hunger, exhaustion, or fear, but cannot reason. Can an octopus use tools? Sure. Can it recognize familiar things? Yes. These reactions, however, are caused by changes in the body. St. Thomas even recognized that animals have a “sensitive soul” (from the senses). This declaration on consciousness is only about 750 years late coming to this conclusion.
St. Thomas also makes a distinction between humans and other animals. While we also have sensitive appetites and respond to what we see, hear, smell, taste and touch, humans can reason beyond sensory perception. We can infer and deduce abstract things like justice, freedom, beauty, and love. Our soul has the powers of will and intellect, and is not merely controlled by base appetites. We can chose to do good or evil, to grow in virtue or give in to vice. We desire to learn and innovate, to conduct scientific inquiries. Animals don’t issue declarations on consciousness, for instance.
St. Thomas, citing another 6th century theologian, defined a person as “an individual substance of a rational nature.” The understanding of personhood developed from theological efforts to understand the Divine Persons of the Blessed Trinity. Mankind is created in the image of God, individuals but one united race, each to know, love, and serve others and our Creator, to seek Heaven. Humans are persons; animals are not.
I hope rational people will not suggest that we start granting animals personhood just because they are aware of hunger and pain and obey their instincts; for that would not elevate animals beyond what they already are. It sure would confuse the meaning of being human though.
Act of charity or survival?
Octopus opening a container with a screw cap. (Credit: Matthias Kabel, Photographed at "Haus der Natur", Salzburg, Austria.)
Category: Catholic Free Press, Evolution
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
An interesting topic and well written. The genetic difference between an ape and a man is %1; yet there are huge differences. On the flip side, there are huge similarities. Maybe the difference between God and Man is %1.
“I hope rational people will not suggest that we start granting animals personhood just because they are aware of hunger and pain and obey their instincts; for that would not elevate animals beyond what they already are. It sure would confuse the meaning of being human though.”
>> Rational people could never suggest that animals are people. Rational people notice the differences between themselves and animals, some of which you enumerate above.
But the Modern Academy could.
And will.
Is.
Here, as also in the case of that self-creating universe which emerges from a Nothing which turns out to contain Something (the latest rage over in physics and cosmology), science today is riddled with the self-contradictions of the substitute *metaphysics* into which it has willy-nilly transformed itself.
The biggest favor the Catholic Church could have done for science is to teach it how to think about metaphysical matters the way Thomas Aquinas thinks about them.
Instead we discovered the wonderful ways in which we might find points of commonality between the Faith and the materialist metaphysics which underlies all of evolution and big bang cosmology.
How can anyone really be surprised at the result?
If the Church will not defend Her metaphysics and theology, certainly no one ought to be surprised if the Academy concludes they can go ahead and employ their own.
PS: Regarding the genetic identity of humans and orangutangs, the 99% number has been shrinking rapidly of late.
Turns out the junk DNA isn’t junk after all, and when non-coding portions of the genome are compared the number goes well down- perhaps as low as 90%.
Rick, I’m surprised you made no reply to a comment in the article below this one, titled: Geocentrism versus Heliocentrism, A letter from a reader.
“I am astonished, horrified, and utterly shocked that valuable column space on the pages of the Remnant has been sqandered on debating questions which have so long been uttely settled that asking them again (let alone pronouncing nonsense in sheer perverse defiance of the varifiable facts) is gravely irrational, to say the best, and positively scandalous (as in the sin of scandal) at the worst.”
Maybe you or Stacy could also help me with this news item i read this morning:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/30/catholic-newspaper-scrubs-interview-after-priest-says-children-are-seducers/
I do not find any article titled “Geocentrism versus Heliocentrism”, Mjek, although it is a safe bet I would be happy to comment if I did
Rick, a Grif Ruby dropped it here, of all places.
http://www.acceptingabundance.com/infant-death-and-sacred-parenting-an-interview/
Mjeck,
I just ignored that comment. Harsh language doesn’t shut down my intellectual curiosity.
That story has been thoroughly covered in Catholic cyberspace. Check out the homepage of New Advent for some commentary. NCR apologized, which is a higher standard than most outlets hold themselves to.
Besides, Mjeck, anyone who thinks some victims of violence matter and others don’t, has no moral standing to criticize that priest’s comments.
Other victims of violence? Abortion? Abortion and Pedophilia are equal? I find the issue of Abortion complicated, but not Pedophilia
I’ve never done either, nor sympathized with someone who’s done either, so I guess that makes me morally superior
We have super computers in our skulls, hands to work with, minds to dream with, feet to propel us, etc… and must humans don’t like using any of those in any combination.
An octopus can open a jar with lid made with the above just because it can or maybe hungry… Ironic isn’t it?
Umm, ironically I do not see the irony, Andrew.
Probably because your initial premise, upon which any irony would crucially depend, isn’t even approximately true
LOL. We don’t have supercomputers in our brains. We have brains, and we barely understand them. But our minds are beyond that.
See Jeff McLeod’s article on mental illness and violence.
Jeff’s article was well written and very considerate. I read it three times. I wish these things were talked about more openly and with compassion.
If God made our brains so simple that we could understand them fully, then we wouldn’t have the capacity to understand them
I thought you’d like that Mjeck. Jeff has always written with utmost charity and I don’t know of anyone else who could tackle such difficult material with such compassion. That article was an attempt to start a discussion, and while not too much was discussed, it was widely read in its original publication at Catholic Lane.
I just saying that most people are lazy despite the clear advantages that we have over our counterparts and there is a squishy octopus opening a jar. Yeah I know apes can open jars and my cats can find their toy mice in the cabinets.
I disagree, I think we do have supercomputers up there. How many other supercomputers do you know of that can process emotions?
GEEZ! Nit-pick me to death why don’t ya!
I’m off to the sushi bar for lunch…..
What? I know, I know. The busier I am, the snarkier I seem to get. Need to work on that. Maybe I should stay quiet instead of firing off a quick comment.
If you only knew what these kids did to me each day, Andrew. Oh, if you only knew.
My response to the geo/helio post is up:
http://www.acceptingabundance.com/infant-death-and-sacred-parenting-an-interview/#comment-13628
Stacy, no harm, no foul. I only said that jokingly. Emoticons are hard pressed to replace human emotion in a medium such as this. Fortunately we have brains aka supercomputers to sort out such things.
I wouldn’t call it snarky at all. I’m living with snarky, as my wife is earning her masters in nursing. Snarky is my best friend for the next 2 years, probably more.
Best of all she is a neuro-certified nurse and I thought she might enjoy reading Jeff’s article, you know, food for thought…. Snarrrrkyyy!!! Best go be productive around the house or something….
Since I don’t know what kind of stress children can do to a person because I don’t have any I can only sympathize with you there. You are right however, you should be quiet (not at all in a snarky way) and enjoy every second of silence.
Rick, assuming that the octopus wasn’t trained to open jars there is plenty of irony there. Just think of the laziest most listless person you know or know of and an octopus and a jar with a lid.
My sushi was awesome BTW
Why we have a brain: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120627-the-real-reason-for-brains
Proof that mind does not- cannot possibly!- equal brain:
http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/Science_No-Brain.pdf
Relevant excerpt:
“There’s a young student at this university,” says Lorber, “who has an IQ of126, has gained a first-class honors degree in mathematics, and is socially completely normal. And yet the boy has virtually no brain.”
December 1980??
LOL!
Lorber admitted it later, saying that he “was only half serious”
I suppose the scans were only half serious too, Mjek?
Start tap dancin’ there, fella
Wow. I didn’t know about that one, Rick.
Mjeck, that’s in Science journal, a reputable peer-reviewed publication, one of the most respected across all specialties. Today it’s taken an unfortunate turn towards the political, but it’s still one of the highest places to publish. Back then, I don’t imagine they would have published something like that flippantly.
Where did you get that quote that he said he “was only half serious?” I can find it on Wiki, but the reference doesn’t have a reference (that I can find). Even so the Wiki says:
Lorber admitted it later, saying that he “was only half serious”, but defends himself with: “I can’t say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms.”
Apparently there were more than this one case too.
Stacy,
Did you watch the Ted Conference video i posted? Ted Conference, ted.com, is the “Creme-De-La-Creme” of modern day, Atheists and Science. They are the most respected and admired by the Atheists. I would challenge you to put your arguments against these speakers.
If you would like me to further explain why Rick’s link is irrelevant, I can.
Mjeck,
No, at first I didn’t. I just did (stuck under a sleeping baby).
I remember you said that Dr. Victor Stenger didn’t speak for all atheists, even though he’s a very well-respected atheist scientist and writer. Dr. Wolpert is making the same basic argument: We are Newtonian machines with no free will.
They both are saying that the physical body is all there is to us, that we don’t have a soul (a mind, a spirit, same thing).
If that’s the case he’s standing up there arguing for nothing meaningful. Whatever he believes is beyond his control. He’s no different than a rock.
If he really believes that, why should I take him seriously?
Now, why is Rick’s link irrelevant?
“Now, why is Rick’s link irrelevant?”
>> I was hoping he’d take the bait.
Got some more real interesting cases.
“Stenger is now mainly known as an advocate of philosophical naturalism, skepticism, and atheism. He is a prominent critic of intelligent design and the aggressive use of the anthropic principle. He maintains that consciousness and free will, assuming that they in fact do exist, will eventually be explained in a scientific manner that invokes neither the mystical nor the supernatural.”
This is what Stenger is saying about himself. Which part of this do you disagree with?
I’ve been in the sleeping baby predicament, i can empathize
Those arguments all converge on the same premise — that we have no soul.
I say (not my original idea, it’s Catholic doctrine) we do, we have a soul and a body, and our soul has two powers: 1) the will and 2) the intellect. The soul is immaterial, and you can’t explain the immaterial with the material. Two different planes, so to speak. In life, we strive for something beyond us — Heaven.
All that makes beautiful sense to me.
Think about it. If there’s no soul, no something beyond us to strive for, then suffering has no meaning. Our actions have no ultimate purpose. According to Wolpert, we are incapable of having goals since our choices to move all depend on the past experience. What are we moving towards?
I also concluded a while ago that people like him have never thought about children much. Anyone who’s raised one knows that mathematics are completely incapable of predicting a two year old’s next move. If human behavior were really a matter of Bayesian analysis, I’d have Bill Gates mowing my lawn by now because I’d own the stock market.
I agree that you cannot live a personal life through science or facts or by the material world alone. And I agree that there are two realms: The material and immaterial.
However, how can you argue for the immaterial, by disagreeing with the material? As you said, they are two different planes (of existence), that, I presume do not come in contact, in a measurable, predictable way
If you live predominately by the immaterial, and the Atheist lives predominately by the material; then why is one more preferred, or more right than the other?
If the Atheist lives by the material, and cannot see, nor have any concept of the immaterial, then why is the Atheist wrong? He has accurately perceived his surroundings, and is telling you the truth when he says he has no soul. The Atheist has no burden of proof, as no immaterial ever is in contact with the material.
“And I agree that there are two realms: The material and immaterial.”
>> That is the whole shooting match right there.
“However, how can you argue for the immaterial, by disagreeing with the material?”
>> She doesn’t.
” As you said, they are two different planes (of existence), that, I presume do not come in contact, in a measurable, predictable way”
>> Rather the same way babies do not behave in a measurable, predictable way. Therefore, since non-predictable things occur in the material realm, you have no legitimate objection here.
“f you live predominately by the immaterial, and the Atheist lives predominately by the material; then why is one more preferred, or more right than the other?”
>> Anyone who lives as if the material realm were irrelevant is a fool.
Anyone who lives as if the immaterial realm were irrelevant, is a fool.
It is always foolish to ignore one of the two realms of reality, and as you yourself admit:
“….I agree that there are two realms: The material and immaterial.”
“If the Atheist lives by the material, and cannot see, nor have any concept of the immaterial, then why is the Atheist wrong?”
>> For the same reason a Cathar who denied that material reality exists since it can only be seen through the evil burden of illusory matter, the escape from which is the sole means of spiritual advancement.
They are both wrong because they both deny reality.
The reality, as we agree, is that:
“….there are two realms: The material and immaterial.”
Yes Rick, please tell me more about your half serious scientist from 1980. I will extend my challenge to you: To put your arguments up against any Ted Conference Video.
Yes, there is the material and the immaterial, but you have the burden of proof for the immaterial, not the Atheist.
I am not aruing, Mjek.
I am presenting you with factual evidence.
To “LOL” it as “half serious” is impotent.
Refute the study, if you can.
There are other similar cases in the literature.
These are not arguments.
These are facts.
Good luck.
“Yes, there is the material and the immaterial”
>>We ahve already agreed, and I have already explained that this is the whole shooting match.
“but you have the burden of proof for the immaterial, not the Atheist.”
>>I asume the “you” here was delivered while looking in the mirror, then?
Step forward with your proof, then.
Where is your proof for your assertion:
“Yes, there is the material and the immaterial”?
OK, a few hints for you then.
1. At exactly 6pm PST today I will raise both my arms, and I will lower either the right, or the left one. I have decided which. No one else can know this, even should they measure my brain state at this instant, including whatever alleged configuration equates to “will raise both arms and will lower one”.
The reason is that my brain state will have completely changed at 6pm PST, including that configuration alleged to disclose both my intention, and my decision.
But I absolutely assure you, the decision has been made in advance, and will be executed at 6pm.
It is not the brainstate which embodies, or determines, this fact.
Something immaterial, unmeasurable, and unpredictable determines this fact.
That something is me.
I exist.
You can’t measure, or predict me.
2. The “me” in #1 above is the same “me” who debated you months ago.
None of my material components, at the quantum level and even the molecular and cellular level, including my brain neurons, have been retained over that time. Yet I am still the selfsame “me”.
These are two of the trillions upon trillions of proofs that demonstrate that reality, as you had earlier agreed, consists in
“……the material and the immaterial.”
Your link to a half serious scientist from 1980 is no more significant than a peer reviewed paper from 1798 about zapping electricity through dead bodies; proving the existence of the holy ghost.
Your evidence is irrelevant. If you want a serious debate about modern science, then put your arguments up against Ted.
Why are you demanding that I prove the immaterial?
Mjeck, that’s in Science journal, a reputable peer-reviewed publication, one of the most respected across all specialties. Today it’s taken an unfortunate turn towards the political, but it’s still one of the highest places to publish. Back then, I don’t imagine they would have published something like that flippantly.
Where did you get that quote that he said he “was only half serious?” I can find it on Wiki, but the reference doesn’t have a reference (that I can find). Even so the Wiki says:
Lorber admitted it later, saying that he “was only half serious”, but defends himself with: “I can’t say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms.”
The brain is capable of re-wiring itself. The human body is very resilient and especially the brain, which can heal in remarkable ways. I don’t see this proving the immaterial.
You cannot prove the immaterial in a material world. The only way to prove the immaterial, from what I can see, is to live and extra-ordinary, distinguishable life.
OK Mjek, message received, you will simply ignore scientific evidence that challenges you, and continually type this strange word “Ted”.
I do not know Ted.
Any Ted.
So we can dispense with science.
Let’s proceed to logic then.
You have stated:
““….I agree that there are two realms: The material and immaterial.”
I asked you to prove this thing you assert, and you answer….
“Why are you demanding that I prove the immaterial?”
>> One hardly knows whether to laugh or to cry.
Ah, well.
I apologize for wasting your time, Mjek, won’t happen again, carry on, say hi to Ted for me………..
http://www.ted.com/
Why do I need to prove my assertion regarding the immaterial to you?
Catholic teaching, consistent with Aquinas who followed Aristotle, doesn’t just focus on the soul or the body, but on both. Aristotle believed that knowledge was gained first by receiving data through the senses and then by reasoning in the mind to something higher or more abstract.
You need both, the immaterial and the material.
And they are intertwined, both part of who you are. Your brain isn’t “you” anymore than your finger is. Your soul is you, but if you are human your soul must belong to a body.
Jeff also dealt with this in his catechesis on mental illness. The brain is an organ. The mind is immaterial.
And it’s easily proven for anyone who admits he can think and reason. That’s one thing that bugs me about people like Wolpert. They are fond of using words like “I believe” or “I think” or “I understand” to describe why humans can’t believe, think, or understand. It’s a classic Non sequitur, and a self-defeating argument.
This is GOOD NEWS. I’m not trying to be argumentative.
I don’t disagree with you. The immaterial involves the abstract; symbols, metaphors, narratives, etc.
Mental Illness is an interesting subject. Many of the Saints and Writers that have developed Christianity, today, would be diagnosed with some mental illness. I personally would disagree, as did Jeff. I certainly would enjoy a follow up article from him further detailing his pathology and therapy techniques.