Do animals have souls?

I have simply applied your reasoning. It is you who is being selective. For you hair splitting benefit. Effects are the tracks we observe. That is not a response I would expect from you. I did not say that anything having effects is a force.
It is you who is using words too narrowly by choice.
It is a very reasonable and accurate thing to say that every interaction between everything that exists is driven or caused by, and I use the term loosely "forces". No force...no interaction...stagnant universe.
It is also reasonable and accurate to say that the interaction we are having is a phenomenon that by continuity of my above statement must be driven by a force. It is a penomenon that science cannot account for. I am simply being a good scientific observer.I observe that there is a force at work that current scientific understanding does not address. I am simply labeling this "force" as "soul" if you will. If you insist on selectively using narrow definitions of meaning you will limit your ability to understand. I have a very good understanding of the perspective of physics. Have you shared it with evc?I am curious. You use the word "I" in the above sentence. How do you mean this? Do you account for "I" as congnition. Maybe the reason people are ignoring your theory is that they choose not to be defined in that way. You have views and ideas you have not shared in this general avenue we have discussed across similar topics.

I won't further comment on your "force of you" thesis, since that discussion is going nowhere. I have hinted at it in, for example, You are.. The reaction is similar to what I have had in discussions elsewhere (i.e. not very receptive). C'est la vie. I don't explicitly define "I", but it is implicit in my theory. However that isn't the problem.People have quite strong ideas on what they expect of a theory of cognition. There are, roughly, three main groups of such expectations.

1. A spiritual explanation (a supernatural dualistic soul);
2. A computational explanation (as in Artificial Intelligence);
3. Some sort of mysticism, suggesting that the problem is unsolvable.

My theory is none of those. Moreover, it challenges traditional assumptions of philosophy/epistemology (including philosophy of science). It is difficult for people to challenge their long established assumptions, particularly when they are not consciously aware that they are making such assumptions.

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion.
I am of the opinion that it is directly shaped by that which you describe in this statement: Perhaps it's time you share what is truly on your mind. These are all just different views of the same thing. It is that simple. This quote of yours from the "You are" topic, to me, shows you believe in exactly what I am puting forth in my "force of me" topic. There is something that occurs independant of the known "forces" of physics. To say " a system of processes makes use" What do you mean by that? There are many systems of process in nature. Then they all "make use" of atoms? How do you believe we are different or are we?My over all view is that we exist independant of and within the body at the same time.This is what I identify as soul or I. We define our own reality by how we choose to percieve what we encounter. I do not share your or others finite perception of "I". In turn my reasoning suggests that the world is not flat. I would be a fool to assume that humans are unique in nature. I also feel that far to many people place limits on what the natural world is. "Supernatural" is just another way of seeing the same thing. This was another quote from the "you are" topic.Do you mean the conciousness arises from biological processes?Perception is indeed everything. Different perceptions or perspctives will yield different understandings. Reluctance to see things from different perpectives reveals factual traits of the force of you the soul. It is all perspective. The facts are meaningless until meaning is brought to them and that meaning will forever be open to interpretaion. I am not a process. I can be viewed by you as a process for your purposes but that has nothing to do with my interests. I will define myself if you don't mind.

No, these are not the same thing. According to the second, it is possible, at least in principle, to construct an artificial person. According to the first and third, this is not possible. No, this is not the same view you are putting forth. For one thing, I am not suggesting there is anything mystical about it. For another, I am not suggesting that anything is happening that is independent of the known forces of physics. I'll give an example. Think of the Mississippi river. After a while, the water currently there will have flowed out to sea. We could dig up all of the soil on the river banks, and replace it with different soil. We would still have the Mississippi river. Thus neither the atoms of soil, nor the atoms of water constitute the river. Rather, what constitutes the river is the flow of water, as constrained by the river banks. The river make temporary use of the atoms of flowing water, and the atoms in the constraining banks. However, it is the process, not the atoms, that constitute the river. And the river is not independent of the water and the banks. Without water to flow and the banks to constrain the flow, there would be no river. That would make you a substance dualist. Essentially, you take the first of those three options that I suggested. Yes, certainly. However, I don't claim that it necessarily arises from biological processes. For example, I don't claim that an amoeba is conscious. I would disagree with that. Facts are inherently meaningful.Statements (as strings of letters) are meaningless, until meaning is brought to them. And the meaning of statements is open to interpretation. But when we use the word "fact", we are applying that term to what we take the statement to mean, and not to the raw syntax.

I would like you to share with me where you believe the mysticism is in anything I have said. I certainly do not see my view as mystical. That would make me a dualist to you. I do not see it that way. I am. there is nothing dual about it. Please explain to me how a phenomenon "makes use" of anything.
Your idea is just another view of a meaningless causal effect scenario. Any view of this nature will always fall short of the meaning of "I" At least typical religions have meaning. Science's aproach in this area has thus far remained meaningless and will remain so until the current dogma is abandoned. Really. Then how do you explain the basis of your theory? Why not? Perhaps you can tell me exactly why you decided to imply that an ameoba is somehow exempt from this theory? Conciousness may come in more forms than we can comprehend or understand.
Black people used to be seen as inferior by "enlightened" people.
I would say that you are simply biologically prejudice. We have seen this pattern of human self importance repeated ad'infinitum. I would suggest that to take a truly scientific view of your idea you must consider all living biological processes may be concious in some manner. This is not the case. Facts mean different things to different people.
In many cases facts that are central to some people may be absolutely meaningless to others. It is the elusive "I" that brings meaning to facts. Without the "I" there can be no meaning. I am not sure why you bothered with the syntax comment. It is irrelevant.
"I" am a fact.....proceed

You might want to brush up on your philosophical definitions. Dualists believe in a universe consisting to two components: physical matter and souls.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Right. How about instead of relying on others ideas you think on your own. I have never bothered reading philosophy. I simply make my own.I am not a dualist. As I said, I do not believe in physical matter and souls as something inherantly separate. Exactly what physical matter is has not been determined yet. The idea of physical is our concept.
The entire idea may limit our undertanding of the true nature of the universe. The universe is likely made up of far more than anyone has the capacity to imagine let alone hope to prove or discover. The scope of what we can currently detect or understand is limited to dogma.
To again address the philosophial question of the topic. Based on my philosophy and reason, all living things must have something of this nature. As I have said many times...we are very self involved as a species and prone to think the universe evolves around us. This is not likely so.

Am I supposed to find that somehow admirable? Given that you are currently attempting a philosophical discussion, this assertion makes you look very silly indeed. Well if that's your stance I suggest you read "A Treatise concerning the Principles of Knowledge" by George Berkley (1710). He was mulling the same ideas three hundred years ago....But wait, you dont read Philosophy, right?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

LOL. There are many people like you. You will find that no where in any post I ever write or have writen do I ever or will I ever quote people.
My thoughts are my own when it comes to questions of this nature. That is your individual view. You are welcome to it. Considering the nature of the beast I find it quite humorous when people have to study philosophy. Every person has the capacity to ask and answer thier own questions in this realm. It appears to me tht your attitude reflects a belief that there is some philosophical standard that I am falling short of in some imagined way. A person can philosophise anything. People can agree or disagree. The fact is in order for a person to give it creedance within thier reason it requires acceptance or belief. There is no right or wrong. Only points of view. That is the nature of this topics question.

Your insistence on using "force of you", while not defining it, is an example of your appeal to mysticism. You could maroon yourself on a desert island somewhere. Or you go out into the woods and become a hermit.Language is intended to communicate. If you are going to insist on making up your own meanings, and avoiding the conventional usage of words, then you won't be communicating very effectively. You are trying to change what I said. I wrote of processes making use of material. Phenomena are not processes. You are using fallacious logic.My comment was that human consciousness arises from biological processes. You cannot jump to the conclusion that all biological processes give rise to consciousness. Nor can you jump to the conclusion that there would be no other way of achieving consciousness. The word "consciousness" is a vague term. Different people mean different things. If your meaning for consciousness is such that an amoeba is conscious, so be it. But most people apply the word a little more narrowly than that. Is that a fact? Because if it is a fact, then according to you it is meaningless (and thus can be disregarded). More correctly, the words used to express a fact mean different things to different people. And where people disagree over the meaning, they will likely also disagree over whether it is a fact.

Quite. Are there? What am I like, then? Oh do please flick that chip of your shoulder! Your ideas are about as original as a Hollywood sequel! If you took the trouble to read the work of others you'd be better informed and far less cocky to boot.No-one operates in a conceptual vacuum. Einstein, Newton, Leonardo, Aristotle, Plato - all openly built on the ideas of others.You are no exception.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : Tags.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Oh what the heck....I'll take a stab at it.
You are a person who is convinced they have seen it all before and appear to have an attitude to match. Your attitude toward me has been quite condecending. You likely have little patients when it come to dealing with people in general. You consider life cliche which stems from your feeling of superiority. You likely often look through people when you talk to them unless you have some type of respect for them which for you likely comes quite painfully. Generally you simply have quite an edge about you. I have not nor will I ever claim my thoughts are original in a sense of no one else ever having thought or said them. Perhaps someone has. That is irrelevent to the fact that they are the way I see things through my own reason. That is what the topics question called for. Views on the proposal of whether or not animals have souls.
I have simply stated the way I see things based upon my observations. I have all the same data to work from anyone else has ever had or needed. It's called life. No one corners the market there. You have simply made assumptions about me from your experience as I now have about you in return. However I did not ask for your opinion of me. It would have been much more constructive to comment on my views for what they are concerning the topics question or, state your own if you have any and refrain from the peanut gallery comments. Indeed. One needs input to formulate ideas. In this area of thought my sources are not yours.Perhaps you would like to comment on the topics question?

Whoa! ...and there was me just pointing out that you had failed to understand why NWR called you a dualist. This from a philosopher who can't be bothered to study philosophy! Quite the opposite, in fact. I'm very aware about what I don't know, and would struggle to define any kind of universal philosophy even with the benefit of a lifetime's learning and experience!------------------------------------Now with regard to the topic I would propose animals having degrees of consciousness that are dependent on their particular brain function. On this scale humans would qualify as being particularly self-aware. I see no need for a "soul". One could place me in the "materialist" camp.Since you have corrected me with regard to NWR's labelling of you as a "dualist" you sound as if you are arguing from a "monist" perspective (a metaphysical and theological view that all is of one essential essence, principle, substance or energy). Is that right?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Those are your words. I never said I can't be bothered. What I'm saying is one does not need to. Well of course you would struggle. In fact in vain. There is no universal philosophy. There is only opinion based on reason. Since we all view the world a little differently there will always be sides to the fence. I'm never apposed to peekin over the fence.
So, anyway, Yah gonna share your view on this subject? Or is the whole thing too cliche for yah.

Okay, enough sniping..Now, with regard to the topic I would propose animals having degrees of consciousness that are dependent on their particular brain function. On this scale humans would qualify as being particularly self-aware. I see no need for a "soul". One could place me in the "materialist" camp, I suppose.Since you have corrected me with regard to NWR's labelling of you as a "dualist" you sound as if you are arguing from a "monist" perspective (a metaphysical/theological view that all is of one essential essence, substance or energy). Is that right?