"THAT QUALIFIES THERE WERE GROUPS LIVING AND COOPERATING AND CARING FOR THEMSELVES 1.5 MILLION YEARS AGO THEY BY YOUR DELUSIONAL DEFINITION HAD SOULS"

No I'm quite sorry. I don't accept dictionary definitions on abstract, complex terminology. Just as if we were debating 'love,' I wouldn't even consider anything you brought from a lexicographer as remotely relevant.In any case, that definition would include hordes of different pack animals. That is not what philosophers or theologians have ever meant when they talked about the human soul. I referred you to a gold standard philosophical reference and if you wish to discuss consciousness you can start there. As I said, I mean by human soul I am referring to consciousness precisely in the following sense:

"Self-consciousness. A third and yet more demanding sense might define conscious creatures as those that are not only aware but also aware that they are aware, thus treating creature consciousness as a form of self-consciousness (Carruthers 2000). The self-awareness requirement might get interpreted in a variety of ways, and which creatures would qualify as conscious in the relevant sense will vary accordingly. If it is taken to involve explicit conceptual self-awareness, many non-human animals and even young children might fail to qualify, but if only more rudimentary implicit forms of self-awareness are required then a wide range of nonlinguistic creatures might count as self-conscious." - (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consci...