Nyeusigrube writes:
By frequency, I mean animals are more sensative to the natural ways of life.. like storms or feeling if a person is angry/sad.
Then why (mis)use the word 'frequency'? That's a word with a specific meaning that has little to do with what you are saying about animal sensitivity.
Besides, how do you know that animals are more sensitive to people's feelings? They don't even have those feelings themselves to the same extent. I'll wager you a month's salary that my girl friend is many times more sensitive to my mood than my horse is. Even a complete stranger will be better at reading my mood - from my expression and/or my body language - than my horse is. That's because humans are equipped with a brain trained to pick up even the faintest signals in other humans' behaviour. That's what evolution has done for human-to-human relations. But there's no reason to suppose that evolution has done the same for other-animal-to-human relations.
With the chickens, I have no idea...?
That's what I already suspected, because this whole frequency/animal-sensitivity thing is just vague wishful thinking. Animals do not have a soul any more than humans do, because the concept of a soul is nothing more than a flight of the human imagination. When an animal dies, it rots. When a human dies, the same happens. The closest you will ever come to having a soul that lives on after your demise is the collective memory of you in people who have known you, or the collection of thoughts you may have committed to whatever media persist after you die.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
™ Version 4.2
