Nah. The one isn’t proved – it’s not even testable, let alone “obvious.” And even if the one were true it would not imply that the other is true. And I know you are “obviously” familiar with the term “logical fallacy.”

I would argue that believing in a soul changes the ends people seek. Belief in a soul effects the very purpose of being. And as I point out in the article, I don’t think there is a better explanation for the phenomena of experience than a “soul.”

Why should you believe in a soul? If you are perfectly happy believing what you believe now, then you have no reason to. From my perspective, it doesn’t matter if you chose to believe in it or not. I don’t need to convince you of anything, since you’re going to experience the afterlife whether you believe in it or not. For me, knowing I am not my body is helpful in maintaining a peaceful mind.

And yes, since I believe conscious experience is eternal in nature, and since animals obviously undergo experience, they too have eternal souls.

I’m a Bayesian so I prefer monism to dualism because it’s just statistically more likely. However, I judge beliefs by their predictive power or usefulness. I believing in an immaterial soul allows one to make accurate predictions of phenomena which can’t be explained otherwise or allows people to achieve their ends in ways not otherwise possible, then an immaterial soul can be treated as functionally true. I haven’t seen what benefits such belief provides though. Even though there are problems with a materialist view of consciousness, why should I believe in a soul?

Also, do non-human animals have souls?

I contend that the lack of philosophy in so-called “science” today has brought us to the confused state we are in.

Nope, a photon interacting scattering of an atom would be classified as making a measurement, in fact the first derivations of the uncertainty principle use this thought experiment.

“I assume you are going to argue in favor of MWI, given your claim that collapse of the wave function has nothing to do with an actual conscious observer. Which ultimately supports my claims; given that MWI is deterministic, which leaves no room for free will, and hence, supports my argument that it is impossible to derive a solution for “awareness” and free will out of QM theory. ”

We’ll I’ll be damned, you mean you can’t reduce the problem of the brain to “just physics?”

Stop reading Wiki articles and then acting like you’re an expert on the subject.

“In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse (also called collapse of the state vector orreduction of the wave packet) is the phenomenon in which a wave function—initially in asuperposition of several different possible eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single one of those states after interaction with an observer. In simplified terms, it is the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer.”

“Many Worlds Interpretation response: the decoherence or “splitting” or “branching” is complete when the measurement is complete.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

“In quantum mechanics, “observation” is synonymous with quantum measurement and “observer” with a measurement apparatus and observable with what can be measured. Thus the quantum mechanical observer does not necessarily present or solve any problems over and above the (admittedly difficult) issue of measurement in quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanical observer is also intimately tied to the issue of observer effect.

A number of interpretations of quantum mechanics, notably “consciousness causes collapse”, give the observer a special role, or place constraints on who or what can be an observer.”

Further, a measurement device could not be built unless a conscious entity assembled it. So one would have to explain how a device could cause a wave collapse without a conscious entity first constructing that device.

I’d also like to add that the Many Worlds interpretation leads to total determinism, with no room for free will at the quantum level. So if you want to argue MWI, then you’ll have to convince me that I didn’t chose to write this response to you – I was simply predestined to do so.

I assume you are going to argue in favor of MWI, given your claim that collapse of the wave function has nothing to do with an actual conscious observer. Which ultimately supports my claims; given that MWI is deterministic, which leaves no room for free will, and hence, supports my argument that it is impossible to derive a solution for “awareness” and free will out of QM theory.

Some more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend#Consciousness_and_measurement

“Wigner designed the experiment to illustrate his belief that consciousness is necessary to the quantum mechanical measurement process. If a material device is substituted for the conscious friend, the linearity of the wave function implies that the state of the system is in a linear sum of possible states. It is simply a larger indeterminate system.
However, a conscious observer (according to his reasoning) must be in either one state or the other, hence conscious observations are different, hence consciousness is not material. Wigner discusses this scenario in “Remarks on the mind-body question”, one in his collection of essays, Symmetries and Reflections, 1967. The idea has become known as the consciousness causes collapse interpretation.”