Different in degree or kind; language (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 30, 2014, 17:47 (3616 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You now seem unsure whether our bodies and brains (which can hardly be separated from intellect and consciousness, even if the source of these remains a mystery) did or didn't evolve by Darwinian evolution. 
DAVID: I'm not unsure. Very simple. 'Degree' means that we humans evolved with our giant brain by some form of evolution. "Kind" means that our giant brain and consciousness were created by a special purposeful directed process separate from the evolution of our animal bodies... -Thank you for this clarification. Earlier, you dismissed the divine dabble in favour of preprogramming, but you now have God inserting a totally different brain and form of awareness (kind, not degree) to those of the animals from which our bodies evolved. I have difficulty separating the brain from consciousness (see below on ‘dualism'), and consciousness from the phenomena of which we and our fellow animals are conscious. They would scarcely be able to survive if they didn't perceive phenomena and process their perceptions as we do. I agree that we do this in a far more complex manner, to the point of being aware of our awareness and able to question ourselves and our perceptions, but does that mean our brains are totally different as opposed to being similar but more complex? You say you identify with the following:
 
DAVID: From vj Torley, the theistic philosopher:
"On the Thomistic account, every human being is a unity. An organism's soul is simply its underlying principle of unity. The human soul, with its ability to reason, does not distinguish us from animals; it distinguishes us as animals. The unity of a human being's actions is actually deeper and stronger than that underlying the acts of a non-rational animal: -If we are animals whose souls have a deeper, stronger “unity” than those of our fellow animals, it sounds as if he's talking about difference in degree, not kind. May I assume you believe that animals have souls?-QUOTE: “...rationality allows us to bring together our past, present and future acts, when we formulate plans. When Aquinas argues that the act of intellect is not the act of a bodily organ, he is not showing that there is a non-animal act engaged in by human beings. He is showing, rather, that not every act of an animal is a bodily act. The human animal is capable of non-bodily acts in addition to bodily ones."-I find this very confusing. If not every act of an animal is a bodily act, then animals are also capable of non-bodily acts, and indeed we know they have the ability to plan and to reason, as proven by multiple experiments on animals, birds and even insects. Of course this is on a much shorter timescale (degree) and on a vastly smaller scale (degree) than our own. It might perhaps be better if you explain your line of thought in your own words. Perhaps I could start by asking if you are a substance dualist (= the mind/soul is separate from the body/brain and can exist independently of it) or a property dualist (= mind/soul and body/brain are one, though they produce two “properties” - mental and physical)? The latter precludes survival of the “soul” after death.
 
This discussion may help both of us to clarify ideas on the nature of consciousness, even if we don't see eye to eye on its implications for evolution!