Do animals have souls?

If you want to talk like that, then nothing is ever observed.Forces are measured. In common scientific speech, a measurement is an observation. Thus, under the ordinary scientific use of "observe", forces are indeed observed.

That is not what I said. However, "reality" is our word, part of our language. In the sense that we define the meaning of our words, you could say that we define reality. No. Your use of "the force of you" is idiosyncratic, so is not at all the "same definition." Actually, I am taking observation as a kind of measurement. When you look around and see something, you see it by virtue of measuring activity that your brain and visual system are undertaking.However, I would not say that if it cannot be measured, it cannot be known. We do know mathematics, but not by measurement/observation. No, but you are saying that. After all, you said: By the same reasoning, no cars (colliding or otherwise) can ever be observed. All you can do is experience the effects of photons impinging on your retina. No, I haven't said that. The ability of people to believe is not completely constrained by what they observe.

I addressed that by pointing out that you are using "observe" too narrowly. Those are your words, not mine. We judge a force by its effects, not whether there are any tracks. And this is just silly.We judge a force by its effects. It does not follow that anything having effects is a force. We judge a force by very specific effects. A person can exert a force, and thus have similar effects. That does not make the person a force.If you insist on inventing your own meanings for words, then you limit your ability to communicate. You can remedy that problem by studying some physics. I actually have a fairly elaborate theory of human cognition. However, nobody much seems interested.

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.

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.

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.