Evidence for God from Science

Check out 10 Two-Headed Animals. I have a question regarding the ontology of these abnormal features.

Should these animals with two heads be considered one animal and/or entity, or two?

Thanks Kurieuo. You just freaked me out for the rest of the day!

On a related note, I have friends who are Siamese twins. They moved to England, so the other one could drive. Steven Wright

Two animals.

Two animals and two seperate entities that have a conjoined body.

Ontologically, I don't see how you can distinguish between the entity and the animal. Take the case of the turtle. A turtle is an animal. If there are two turtles there are, definitionally, two animals. One of the animals may be improperly formed in that it is dependent on another animal for its life. That doesn't make it less of an animal, though. Or, again, the two animals may be improperly formed in that both are dependent on the other for their lives. But, again, that doesn't make them less of an animal.

Thanks Jac,

I guess is really depends on how one interprets "entity". I half regret using such an ambiguous term... but I was trying to drive at the plurality in one to see whether it serves as a plausible example for something other (gee, I wonder what? ).

The way I see it, the fact they are physically joined and cannot be divided (I presume), shows to me they are physically one entity. However, knowing better that this is more a malformation of two animals which if developed normally, would be two animals... I see that there are two animals in the one physical entity.

If you spiritualise "entity" though, then I would agree. There are two animal souls (entities) that are of turtle form trapped in a physical body. As such, there are two entities/two turtles. Or one could I suppose even say two entities and one animal if they did not know better that such was a malformation.

So let's say there existed a species of animal with two heads. That is, the two heads was not a malformation, but the actual creature itself. What would we have in this instance?

Kurieuo wrote:Thanks Jac,

I guess is really depends on how one interprets "entity". I half regret using such an ambiguous term... but I was trying to drive at the plurality in one to see whether it serves as a plausible example for something other (gee, I wonder what? ).

The way I see it, the fact they are physically joined and cannot be divided (I presume), shows to me they are physically one entity. However, knowing better that this is more a malformation of two animals which if developed normally, would be two animals... I see that there are two animals in the one physical entity.

If you spiritualise "entity" though, then I would agree. There are two animal souls (entities) that are of turtle form trapped in a physical body. As such, there are two entities/two turtles. Or one could I suppose even say two entities and one animal if they did not know better that such was a malformation.

So let's say there existed a species of animal with two heads. That is, the two heads was not a malformation, but the actual creature itself. What would we have in this instance?

One entity, two minds.

Kurieuo wrote:Thanks Jac,

I guess is really depends on how one interprets "entity". I half regret using such an ambiguous term... but I was trying to drive at the plurality in one to see whether it serves as a plausible example for something other (gee, I wonder what? ).

The way I see it, the fact they are physically joined and cannot be divided (I presume), shows to me they are physically one entity. However, knowing better that this is more a malformation of two animals which if developed normally, would be two animals... I see that there are two animals in the one physical entity.

I don't want to spend too much time here just to debate examples, as I think your last question is the important one, but I just want to note that I still don't know that I'd even say they were one entity. If we accept the notion of the soul as the active principle of the body (and I'm pretty sure you do, given our previous discussions on substance dualism), then it is the soul that produces the body, not vice-versa. So if you have two souls, you necessarily have two-bodies. That there was a malfunction in development that caused one body to cease developing on its own and develop an essentially parasitic relationship on the other doesn't change the fact that we still have two bodies.

If you spiritualise "entity" though, then I would agree. There are two animal souls (entities) that are of turtle form trapped in a physical body. As such, there are two entities/two turtles. Or one could I suppose even say two entities and one animal if they did not know better that such was a malformation.

So let's say there existed a species of animal with two heads. That is, the two heads was not a malformation, but the actual creature itself. What would we have in this instance?

Ontologically, the only way I could see this happening is if the creatures soul was such that it had two intellects, two wills. But that is a difficult notion. What is the intellect? What is the will? Traditionally, the former has been regarded as the soul's faculty of thought, and the latter the soul's elective power. Notice in both cases that the soul knows and the soul wills. It knows through its intellect. It acts through its intellect.

Now, here may be a difference in the two of us, but being a good Aristotelian, I accept the simplicity of the soul. So it doesn't make much sense to me to speak of two intellects and two wills!

But let's forget the simplicity of the soul and let's just focus on one of the two powers: let's take willing, only because it is not a faculty and therefore involves few distinctions. What does it mean to say the soul wills? Again, traditionally, the idea (so far as I understand it) is that the soul is presented with a range of possible acts by the intellect. I can turn right or left or stay where I am. The soul, not being omniscient, perceives good in each choice (perhaps it perceives good wrongly! The point, though, is that it perceives good in each choice!). The will always wills the good, but that willing is indeterminate precisely because the soul cannot guarantee in any given case absolutely the greatest good. So it elects. In other words, the soul moves (motus) the body in accordance with a perceived good, and this movement is called election or will. But on this view, what would it even mean for a soul to have two wills? Since it is the same soul that wills, how could the soul at one time will A and at the same time will ~A? That would seem to require the simultaneous acceptance of two contrary propositions as true. I have no problem with the notion of two distinct souls coming to opposite conclusions. But how could the same soul both will A and ~A simultaneously, which would seem to be exactly what is the case in one soul had two wills?

So I don't think that it makes much sense to speak of one soul with multiple intellects/wills . . .

How that all relates to the Trinity is a rather long discussion. More importantly, since my view of the Trinity is squarely grounded on Divine Simplicity, I don't know that I could accept some illustrations for it that you perhaps could given what I understand to be your distaste for the doctrine. But maybe we can get into it focusing on common ground . . . I don't know. I'd be interested to see if you agree with the ontology of the soul in relation to the will discussed above first.

I'll respond later to some things, however after reading your words, I'd like to dig into Divine Simplicity. I've started up another thread which I invite and hope you will discuss it in.

Note, I don't really have much knowledge on the ins and outs of this concept. I seem to have naturally just accept some things in DS like God being love rather than possessing love, or being rightous rather than possessing righteousness. But, with my current set of beliefs, I seem unable to accept the idea that properties can stand on their own underneath nothing but themselves. Haven't reflected much on why, but I expect I will. It just doesn't seem logical.

Now I'm having to think .... What if there's one head but two rear ends?

Canuckster1127 wrote:Now I'm having to think .... What if there's one head but two rear ends?

Bart, that would be one "assinine" animal.