Do animals have souls?

Whatever happened to the original topic?

I think a good way to aproach this question is by examining a little repetative human behaviour. Humans in general have a characteristic need to feel superior to things. We tend to place ourselves at the center and assume all else revolves around us. Time and again this view has proven false. Still we persist.
If we remove this silly self centered bias it makes good sense that all living things have a sense of "being"
Of course as I see it one does not have a soul. One is the soul which resides within the husk.

Really? I meant exactly what I said.
Who are "you"?

No person on earth has any idea of what conciousness is. Your definition of it is meaningless and quite limited being based only from the human perspective. You are a litoralist then. One who sees no meaning, Only rules.
You will walk through life and forever miss the point.Black people were niggers until people with this type of ignorance opened thier eyes. An intellectual indifference that has no spiritual ballance. A lot of that foolishness resides on here. The long "logical" webs people will weave to justify this basic point of view on things never ceases to amaze me. lol

How long did the sun revolve around the earth?
We are undoubtedly not the center of everything.Your example in the link is one human view of a percieved way to test self awareness. It is simplistic at best and requires non humans to jump through human hoops. That entire approach is flawed. We still have only a rudimentary understanding of the true interactions other living things have with one another and what they mean to them.
Just because and animal is a "dork" and does not recognise itself in a mirror hardly means it is not self aware. Only a fool would come to such a conclusion from such a narrow perspective. Your view of the world around you reflects what is within. Is this what is within you? Religions have nothing to do with prejudice. That is an aspect of our human character. One that is repeated in many circles and stems from the same core motivations. As I asked....How long did the sun revolve around the earth? Animals only act on insticnt right? lol Surely.
A scientific/factual view of the world is no different than a litoral view of a religious text. The facts are meaningless. The percieved intent is all that matters. It is a reflection of what is in you. Perspectives shape things and the one you are representing is quite empty. You are one

I read the article. It is utter nonsense. The "results" are completely open to interpretation and indicate nothing except what one might read into them. There is no definitive test for self awareness nor is there a clear cut scientific definition of what it is. For someone to sight this as evidence of a clear lack of self awareness is very unscientific and absurd. When you come down to a definitive answer for what you are you will scientifically have to answer that you do not know. It will be no less vague Living life is based on faith. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Since there is no definitive scientific proof of what we are you must have faith in the existance of the undefinable to have this conversation. It is that simple. lol. The mechanics of the world are meaningless. All scientific evidence lies in the mechanics. All things meaningful come from beyond what science can touch. It is the wrong tool for the job.Now back to the animal thingy. It is simple. It comes down to what you believe as to whether animals have souls or not. I see nothing compelling from your posts so far to sway my view. We simply disagree on this philosophical point.

This link is full of nothing but a point of view that I do not share. Why of course. I am asserting my opinion as you are.
You simply do not share mine. It is you you has limited yor perspective to a belief in a doctrine that is tentative at best. That is your choice. Concerning the nature of what we are discussing science has no answers. Anything you have thus cited as evidence is based soley upon opinion. Firstly this completely depends upon your definition of living. Mechanically or spiritualy
Secondly we hear people from time to time state that life is just not worth living based upon a spiritual or completely non scientific point of view. This will often lead one to leave life prematurely by choice. This is not entirely true. Many of the basic principals of religions are based upon good logical sense. Example: Do unto others....
You at this time are placing your faith in a doctrine which is tentative at best. I place mine in something beyond. It is simply a personal choice. But you do have faith. You are citing definitions faithfully. You are placing your belief in them or you would not choose to cite them. The "purpose" of a conversation is not limited to your point of view. It means exactly what I said. Science is tentative how. We ask the ultimate why. Science gives no answers as to why and by it's nature never will. Tell me scientifically the reason or reasons why life for you is worth living. Show me the meaning of your life. Reason it out. As I have stated several times this is simply a philosophical difference of opinion. The term soul describes that which science cannot define. Scientifically you must deny your existance. I not only accept my existance but embrace it with meaning. Your perspective does not allow for meaning. In my perspective it is good reason to assume I am not unique. It is that simple. Ocham's rasor is a philosophical piont of view. I do not need to rely upon citing other peoples thinking to argue my philosophical point of view and the original question is philosophical by nature. Science has nothing to add.

What he showed me was someones idea of what a test for self-awareness is. Yes I have waved it. To assume this is definitive is silly. His effort to back himself up was to give me someone elses opinion.
There is no hard data to back a question of this nature up. It is all opinion. You are a rather passionate individual. I cannot observe your mind.
You said it...I didn't. We cannot observe anything abstract for that matter. Yet all that we do comes from a place or thing we cannot observe. Funny to me how many readily accept a definition such as force is and reject the same basic concept when observing a very similar though more complicated phenomenon.

-Sorry you lost a bit of reality there. No forces can be observed. All we have ever done is observe "thier" effects. Show me force. You cannot.
Let us be more to the point. We have quantitatively measured the physical effects of predictable phenomenon we have labled forces. A force is just an abstract way to describe unique physical interations. Though quantization of our interations with the physical world have not been accomplished it hardly neggates that each of us is a force in the exact same sense. The difference with us is that we are simply not as easily predictable.

So if I follow you: Observation in your mind, defines our reality for us? I am observing you. I am aware of you. You obviously understand that. By this same definition I am observing the force of you.Unless:
You are saying that the only scientific observation that can define reality is through measurement? Is this the point you are trying to make? If it cannot be measured it cannot be known?Are you saying that all other observations other than those done by measurment are invalid? Are you saying the only way we can observe and define force is through measurement? Are you saying that my observation of two cars colliding is invalid as an observation of forces at work? Are you saying that a force is an abstract idea used to describe a phenomenon of interactions between physical things or are you telling me you believe in the existence of actual forces?What you seem to be saying is that if it cannot be meassured you do not believe in it? is this right? I am getting an extemely mixed message here. I would appreciate some clarification if you would. Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.

You have not addressed the point.You want me to believe that if I cannot observe it, it cannot be proven. I tell you that a force cannot be observed.
Then you want me to accept that forces exist by our observation of the tracks they leave behind. So I tell you we are a force and that I know we are there by the tracks we leave behind. Evidence of force at work.
Then you tell me this is different. I am still waiting to hear your justification for one observation being acceptable and the other not.
You still have not made your position clear.
If we are not a force then what explanation for the phenomenon that is us do you have to offer?
I see no difference between the abstract idea of force that science uses and the concept of us as a force. We are simply "a force of a different color" if you will. In this case I was asking you directly.

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.

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.

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

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.