Skip to main content

View Diary: Schrödinger's Church, or Wait Wait, don't Convert Me! (153 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I thought of this recently when viewing the (4+ / 0-)

    reconstruction of a Neanderthal male, which easily could've passed for a short, stocky "sapiens." and, of course, we evidently were similar enough to the Neanderthals to swap DNA with them -- I.e., produce hybrids.  So did Neanderthals have a "soul"?  If not, why not, since evidence continues to slowly mount that they had symbolization and some form of language?  

    It appears that homo erectus did not have speech as we know it, at least at the stage of development represented by the Nariotokome or Turkana boy, whose spinal chord was not large enough to have contained the nerve processes necessary for the brain to control the speech apparatus enough to produce the complexly sequenced multi-syllabic constructions of modern speech.  And Allen Walker, the Leakey associate who discovered the boy's skeleton, in "The Wisdom of the Bones" in a fantasia on what it would have been like to meet the boy face to face, suggests that it would have been like confronting a very alien, unhuman  presence.  Yet, as he admits, homo erectus would have many more "human" characteristics, both as individuals and as groups than even our closest living relatives, the chimps, whose behavior often strikes as extremely human.  

    So at what point in evolution did an immortal soul "emerge"?  I suppose one could argue that it was with the emergence of language -- man as the speech animal.  But it is unlikely in the extreme that language emerged de novo all at once with a single mutation.  So at what point in the development of language did God add a soul to the previously totally animalistic homo genus?  

    Considerations like these start to make Hinduism or some form of pantheism much more believable than any of the Semetic monotheisms.  Or, of course, the agnostic atheism of the diary.

    •  hmm? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SethRightmer, Fishtroller01

      a soul "evolves" .... ??? with language. I'd agree if you said it was an invention of the mind - as in the invention of a meme. Because in reality physically it can not evolve as you propose, at least not in the way I understand a soul to be.

      There's room at the top they're telling you still But first you must learn how to smile as you kill If you want to be like the folks on the hill

      by taonow on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 11:08:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't believe souls can evolve because I don't (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SethRightmer, taonow, Fulgour, radmul

        believe in the "soul,"  which is a metaphsical construct with no observable or verifiable characteristics except the behavioral or the psychological.

        •  Cool... so might I say... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HeyMikey

          I'm pretty sure about some form of physical 'reality'
          but nothing seems to be able to really pin it down...

          So, imagine, given how 'spirit' does seem to manifest
          and may be as empirically provable as so called reality
          that the two, physical and spiritual, are co-dependent,
          that they're both part of something incomprehensible.

          All life is (and we know so little about it) life... Reality
          in terms of organic dynamics. Perhaps physicality is a
          requisite for spiritual 'existence' ~ we are a bit of life,
          made of star stuff...and, all in all, we're God stuff too.

          God is an idea in my mind, a jumble of information...
          I find no other proof than my thoughts. I am of God.

          God would love a cheeseburger and fries, pleeeeease.

    •  Quibble (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SethRightmer, HeyMikey
      It appears that homo erectus did not have speech as we know it, at least at the stage of development represented by the Nariotokome or Turkana boy, whose spinal chord was not large enough to have contained the nerve processes necessary for the brain to control the speech apparatus enough to produce the complexly sequenced multi-syllabic constructions of modern speech.
      The explanation given for this is unlikely in the extreme, as the corticobulbar tract (the motor pathway that controls the face) and the vagus nerve (which innervates the larynx) are not carried in the spinal cord at all. (Sorry, the academic neurologist in me comes out at times like this.)
      •  perhaps (0+ / 0-)

        he's saying the space for the dura mater was too skinny to carry the amount of cerebro-spinal fluid needed to irrigate and nourish a brain of the (supposedly) necessary size.

        why? just kos..... *just cause*

        by melo on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 03:05:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site