Do animals have souls?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

,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?

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.

I have watched Male mallard ducks gang up and relentlessly hound a female until she has been humped to exhaustion and drowned. This is a relatively common occuranceEdited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.

The concept of "I" as "self" is also not neccessary as soul or free will. What is this I am experiencing? The nature of this experience is very unclear. I am apparently interacting with myself. The experienced has led me to links. I am attempting to understand the nature of what I am interacting with. This is still unclear to me.Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.

I am trying to understand what a kalimero is.I am very unclear on this. The nature of the experience of kalimero has not made itself clear to me. Anything I have encountered has been quite vague. I am interacting with myself now. science defines all experience? What a foolish thought. I have disreguarded this notion. Applies this thought directly to the experience below. I am experiencing genes. I see no reason for the concept of "I" or "self" to explain genes.
I am a soul having an encounter with kalimero genes.

Since "self" has no explanation and no physical proof we might as well say that genes explain fairies, gnomes, elves and a host of other non physical things. So the interaction of the kalimero that I am experiencing is the expression of influenced genes.Kalimero is expression?I am experiencing the expression kalimero?This experience is confusing. What is Kalimero?

I am interacting with an anolog computer?
Ramoss is an analog computer
I am still not sure what a kalimero is
I am a soul.Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.