Do animals have souls?

I am attempting to have a clear understanding of what I am experiencing.
I now understand I have been attempting to interact with a product.
How silly of me.

Yes. This is what I choose. Is makes the most sense to me. Not what. Who. I do not appreciate being addressed as a what. No "it" doesn't
Again I do not appeciate being addressed as an "it".
It makes the most sense to me that I will, based on what I have come to understand.

2ice_baked_taters Yet you have no problem refering this way to kalimero{post 191}. Perhaps you care to explain why you find that such is okay from your point of view yet not so for others from theirs?How is it you arrive at the conclusion that the "who" you are is a soul?

---

Dear Mrs Chown, Ignore your son's attempts to teach you physics. Physics isn't the most important thing. Love is.Best wishes, Richard Feynman.

Kalimero is defined as a product of interactions among neurons.
Where is the "who" in this?
I simply cannot relate to a product of interactions among neurons.
This is what I currently understand a kalimero to be.
If there is more, it has not been defined. It makes the most sense. It brings the most meaning. No other word that I am aware of fits my understanding better or more simply and completely. There may be others in other languages.

The who is the neurological response from the neurons that acts as the analog computer. The 'who' is an emergant property of the action of the neurons of the brain, much like walking is an emergent property of
someone moving their legs in the proper manner.We can demonstrate this by altering a brain, and making a different 'WHO', by showing a personality/memory change. This has happened to people via accidents. Phineas Gage is an example of this. He was a normal railroade engineer, but an accident drove a metal rod through a certain section of his brain. He , suprisingly enough, lived.However, he had a strong personality change. He suddenly became a mean son of a gun. Here is a web site dedicated to the analsysi of the situation. http://www.deakin.edu.au/hbs/psychology/gagepage/.Now, can you give a better definition of a 'soul', and show objective evidence that it exists? Or, is it something that we have to accept just because theists say so?

A property is not a who
Property is something owned
By whom it it owned? Or is it ownerless? We all have personality changes. We deal as best we can with what comes our way. This happens without such circumstaces as above. The aproach to the situation above is based on a dogma that I do not acknowledge.
I will explain my understanding in a way you might relate to.
He, software/soul remains intact. He simply has to deal with hardware problems. There is no evidence that proves the opinion of your above refference.
It is opinion based on dogma. A point of view about observations. I do not share this point of view. I do not accept it just because theists assert. It is meaningless to my understanding.

And YOU are not a product? (of evolution, of neural connections...)
What evidence do you have to support this claim (a soul)? and this time bring objective evidence - remember this is the science forum.

No. I am much more than the limited view through the tiny window you choose to peer. I am well aware of the dogma attatched to science.
The simple truth is any evidence presented in this discussion is useless. As I said before it can only be defined by what you believe. Objective evidence is a falicy. All evidence must be interpreted.
This topic was misplaced with good intention, never the less it was not correctly catagorized.

You mean the tiny window called science (tested and reviewed), as opposed to your untested, unfalsafiable, unrewiewed, religously dogmatic opinion (its an opinion because of the above). How exactly can a method that embraces critical thinking and peer review, and puts evidence before opinion, be dogmatic. I agree that there is not such thing as completely objective evidence, science is tentative because of this, that doesnt mean you dont have to present evidence but insted be ready to be peer reviewed until you hypothiesis dies a sudden death. No kidding.

This is why in our sideline to this topic it could not be comunicated to me that a kalimero is a who. Science is only capable of identifying us as a thing or a what.
Who we are can only be explained through creative philosophical expression.

The thing you refer to as a "who" is composed of "what"s (as I have already shown), therefore a "who" can, ultimatly, be explained by (probably) a collective of "what"s. Philosophy has little to do with it. Enough of this! lets talk definitions. Notice that the word 'who' (definition #1) is a pronoun and therefore comes to replace a noun - an object - a "what" (if you insist):Who Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Pronoun - WikipediaThere is no difference between them, except that the pronoun avoids repetitions.

Assertions I will be more than happy to recognise you as a causal effect of physcal interactions if you wish. However the conversation would end as I must recognise I am talking to myself.Come now. I am simply looking for a definition from you if there is one. Rocks falling from a mountain from weatherization. Lightning striking...causal events. The suggestion is there is no difference. The kalimero has given me nothing beyond this. If there is such a thing.

You are making the asserion.. "A property is not a who'.PLease provide evidence for this.I have shown evidence that 'who', (Our mind).. is a property of the neurons. Your just dismissing it does not disprove my conclusion based on the evidence of the study of the brain.Do something more that 'no,, you are not right'. Show some evidence.And you are also using the logical fallacy of 'equivication' . The perm 'property' isn't just ownership. Property can also mean characteristic.So, your arguement is void.. filled with logical fallacies and assersions.Where is your evidence?

I have already given you evidence and stated that I did so: I am just following the logic that is derived from my evidence.

Any evidence must be interpreted. All you have cited is interpretation. One you choose to agree with. I do not agree with this interpretation.
I also do not agree with the dogma for the premise of the study. This interpretation simply supports your belief. Bingo! One is the possesor of property. So are you a collection of charicteristics or are you the owner of them? It is quite simple.