Do animals have souls?

Thank Mr. RickJB That would seem a very likely probability. I have those same thoughts.
My ownly reservation there is that we know little enough about our own kind and there may be states of conciousness living things opperate in that we are not aware of. It isn't like we can have an in depth conversation with other living things to ask them thier opinion. A clinical experiment does not touch the meaning of things which other living things may very well experience as we do or perhaps meaningful but in different ways. By meaningful I mean in an emotional, moral, value sense. Yes, under our currently self center understanding. We place ourselves as the benchmark. I very much see your point. It can be seen that soul is not needed for the biological process to function. I am currious...you reffer to
"a" soul. Does this mean you see soul as a component? I identify soul with self. We get down to: does the "self" continue? Hence your reluctance to use the term soul.I have followed your line of thinking and it leads me down this path.1)What does your body need to live?
2)What behaviour do we exhibit that goes far beyond the basic needs of the body. None of this activity is needed.
Curiousity, Wonder, Greed, Hate ect. All these things and the behaviour that arises from them are not neccesary just as you see soul not to be. We also experience these things yet can exercise control or restraint. I experience....I choose. This is not needed for biological functioning to take place. So when you when you say that "a soul" is not needed in my view I am not needed. When I follow your line of thingking there is no "I"
"I" know this not to be the case.

When I say I see no need for a "soul", I refer to the concept of a soul as an eternal manifestation that exists beyond the physical.I prefer to speak of "a self" or "an ego" as they are terms with less theological weight.My ego is, I feel, a product of my own biological brain function. When that ceases, "I" cease. It's the same with other animals - their consciousness ends with their death.But don't get me wrong, however! This is not to say that I don't value the human experience. Neither do I see humans as an exemplar - we are, after all, blind to many things that other animals can perceive...So to sum up my views:1. Many animals display some form of consciousness. We are one such animal.
2. None of us animals has an eternal "soul". Our "ego" is bound by our our own physcial existence (although one might envision technology being able one day to store or host an "ego" function).

Actually, these emotions (Curiousity, Wonder, Greed, Hate ect.) are an essential part of the survival of social creatures like us - maybe not as basic as a heart - but still essential. The ability to interact with other individuals is crucial for survival.
I dont think he meant that a soul is not essential for our survival, but that the concept of a soul is not essential in order to explain things such as emotion and conscience - I tend to agree.

I do not see it this way. Your above statement has no basis in fact other than peoples assumption of reasons to explain the phenomenon of socialization. I would like you to explain to me how you feel these things are essential. I simply do not see the need for them. How do you explain the survival of countless other animals in this line of thinking? Would you catagorize the ability to choose ones path freely as a social skill that is essential? The concept of free will is equally as non essential as the concept of soul.

So your view would be the same then for the concept of free will?
What would be your take in the concept of free will? "I" am curious how you can speak of ego in the possesive or speak of things in the possesive in general. How is a biological chemical reaction inherantly different from any other? Could not all funtioning systems both biological and non biological be thought of in the same way? If not, then what is the concept of "I" Please correct me if I have misunderstood.
1)Animals display biological funcions. I will not use the term "we"
you already explained as a function.
2)No animal has a soul. The phenomonon of "ego"= biological function
So biological functions are bound by physical existence.
Living things are relatively brief chemical reactions.What is "I"?"I" feel the need to refer to "you" as "biological function", as this is how "you" identify "yourself." Have "I" misunderstood? There are some biological funcions that claim to be causal effects but when "I" reffered to them this way they became offended. I do not wish to offend. Just to understand.I reffer to myself as a soul. You may call me taters

They fit perfectly well. All animals use social behaviors to mate, for example. Some, like Dogs, co-operate in packs in order to hunt. Social interaction of one form or enother is essential to all animals. We are no different.

How is one oil painting any different from another - they are both formed from paint and canvas aren't they?We all have the same chemical function, but, for reasons which are as yet not well understood to science we appear to use those functions to build individual "egos". I suppose another good analogy would be the way in which no two snowflakes are structurally alike...

,Rape happens all the time in all species. What is social about it?
The concept of social itself. Explain this better. If I have understood you correctly:Social interaction requires ego
Ego is a biological function.So social interactions are biological funtions of chemical reactions identified as living things? Chemical reactions co-operate? There are a lot of assumptions there. I am simply trying to understand some fundamental basis for this particular function of a chemical reaction that I have been observing. The concept of "I" is not necessary for social interaction. Social interaction is simple biological funtion.Am I understanding?

Yes this is a good question. How are they different? Again as I understand the biological function I am now observing there is no need for the concept of "self" / "ego" / "I". It is not necessary to explain the biological function. Just random variations of biological function as one function ineracts with another.
It makes much more sense if terms such as "we" or "I" are omitted,
Would you agree?

If by free you mean: #2 Free Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
or in other words - independent of all factors - then I dont think this even exists. I agree.

1) I wouldnt say 'all species', only the ones capable of agreeing to have sex.2) Rape is a social phenomena - thats whats so social about it (definition of 'social' below). Social Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
#4, also take a look at 'social Darwinism'.or maybe this:
Social - Wikipedia

You cut to the chase! I like that! Yes, I suppose so! All forms of life are essentially a hugely complex combination of chemical structures.One could also talk of matter as being little more than electrical charge, but of course the true picture is far more complex.. Not *too* many! We know the chemical compositions and processes of life very well. The processes of the brain, I grant you, are still far from well understood, but science never stops...! Not really, since an anthropologist might well argue that the ego itself is a mechanism used for survival. By giving us the ability to reflect and build on past experience our ego allows us to learn new things and to adapt to our environment. Humans have been spectacularly successful as a species due to their ability to adapt and learn (as well as breed).Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

So this interaction is happening between two mechanisms of survival?
The concept of ego appears to fit only as it relates to mechanism. The concept of self is not necessary. It would make much more sense without the use of posessives. There really is no need for them. So this mechanism is defined by the success of the chemical process? This should not matter as the function of the brain is nothing more than a part of a chemical proccess. All evidence that exists points to this. Any further proccesses or mechanisms discovered still would not require the need for the concept of self. All that is required to explain the interactions are the concepts of mechanisms and chemical processes.
I am trying to understand what I am relating to. If I understand correctly I am experiencing interaction with the effects of a proccess of chemical reactions. I have always been a cut to the chase kind of soul.

The concept of free will is equally as non essential as the concept of soul. What is "I" The concept of "I" is equally as non essential as both free will and soul.
What is an explanation for the mechanism of this interaction taking place? What is it's essential definition? I am trying to understand what I am experiencing.I understand the links the interaction led to. However they are from other interactions. I am interested in understanding this one and the nature of what it is.

Well certainly life does not depend on conciousness! I would argue that consciousness serves as a beneficial adaptation. Well, fair enough - one might well disregard ego and simply point to chemistry as the first cause. This leads us to an interesting point, however. Some scientists, including the likes of Roger Penrose, have suggested that the true origins of consciousness lie at the quantum level...