VERSION|0.5.1|NAME|Alun|DATE|1357836533|CONTENT|[edited to remove typo]
I&#039;m familiar with the philosophical uses of the word &#039;ontology&#039; but think it is a stretch to equate that with the notion of &#039;soul&#039;. I guess there is a sort of connection, in that ontology is about what it means to say something &#039;exists&#039;. So what the heck it means to say that something supernatural like the soul (or a god) &#039;exists&#039; is a real question, and one that I have never yet heard a sensible answer to.

I did wonder whether she meant ontogeny rather than ontology. Niko Tinbergen divided the science of ethology into four basic questions. Given a behaviour, you could ask how it evolved (phylogeny), what the current function is (ie what selection pressure maintains it), the proximate causation (eg which hormones or nerves are involved), or the ontogeny, ie how the behaviour developed in the individual. This last one took you into developmental biology and the whole nature-nurture thing (you see where this is going).

It seems she was thinking (using the term loosely) about environmental influences versus something innate, which she thinks of as the soul, although from what she said I think she would open the whole free-will can of worms if she took it much further, since she equates soul with choice and environment with non-choice.|EMAIL|alunap@mac.com|IP-ADDRESS|170.148.215.156|MODERATIONFLAG|