Talk:Soul/Archive 1

Agnostic beliefs
"Agnostics believe humans cannot come to know whether God(s) or soul(s) exist." Hm, that sounds POV to me. From what I've seen, agnosticism never has anything to do with a soul. Agnosticism could mean that you don't think you can know if there's a soul or not, but i suspect that the majority of all agnostics doesn't think the existance of a soul has anything to do with agnosticism. Saying that all agnostics doesn't think you can know if there's a soul or not would probably be wrong. I changed the text to "Some Agnostics believe humans cannot come to know whether soul(s) exist.". The whole god-part was left out, since that has nothing to do with the soul-part. Ran4 18:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Agnosticism is simply the position that a given proposition is unknown or unknowable. In this sense one may be 'agnostic' about anything. I think the issue here is simply a 'chicken and egg' one that stems from the Judeo-Christian view of the God/soul relationship. Simply put - you can't have eggs without Chickens, you can't have souls without God. I don't see there being an agnostic position on the nature of the soul - one is simply agnostic about it or not. With this in mind I am going to remove the whole agnostic part as irrelevant. Fraser (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Etymology
I recklessssly entered a section on etymology, since I thought it was significant. Feel free to improve on it, but please let some of the original intent stay put. The word "soul" did not exist in the times of Jesus, Socrates or Aristotle, and so the quotations, interpretations and translations into the word "soul" from these sources, means that the word should be handled very carefully. One might go as far as saying that since the word "soul", in the sense we use it today, did not exist in Hebrew or Aramaic, and only partly in Greek, that the word should not exist in the bible. I will not go that far, since all translation is a matter of interpretation, but this detail becomes significant if one insists that the original scriptures are the source of the meaning of the words.

My expirinece of death: I am an austrian man who has heart problems. I suffer from atrial fibrillation. My treatment was heart defibrillating. While the treatment I had a near death experience, wich lasted 30 seconds. It was cold, windy and I was flying over a beautiful landscape. The colors I saw were superstrong. After flying I stopped in a "sky" and beleft me I mentioned my father (died 1999). My father had no body, neither me had one. Only cold fresh air and a cold "sun" and a very big sky was the scene. My father didnt say any word, but I was happy to meet him - he was calm, confident and strong. He was there to wellcome me. After this 30 second expirence this "dream" ended, having the operating room in my eyes. After aperiod of ca 20 miuntes I came out from anaesthesia. This is my story. If anyone is interessted in this story, please contact me: peter.dusl@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.96.185 (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice job!

I've removed this section:

"Also, Jesus said, "He who saves his life will lose it", which means that a faithful believer must be ready to sacrifice his life in order to preserve his soul."

I did so because I don't think it adds to the article, whereas the Bible quote that I left does add to the discussion. If you feel strongly it should be there, by all means reinstate it, this is just my opinion...

I added:

"The word "soul" did not exist in the times of jesus, socrates or aristotle, and so the quotations, interpretations and translations into the word "soul" from these sources, means that the word should be handled very carefully. One might go as far as saying that since the word "soul", in the sense we use it today, did not exist in hebrew or arameic, and only partly in greek."

Because I think it adds well to the consideration of the section (again in my opinion), however, is it possible to find a citation for this?

Cheers, --Arkayik 15:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC) ______

The stuff about Greek not having a word for soul is absolute nonsense. In both Ancient and Modern Greekt the word for soul is Ψυχη. I looked up the Bible quote mentioned and Ψυχη is the word used, not ζωη (spiritual life) or βιος (physical life.) The person who wrote the nonsense about the world soul in Greek clearly does not speak any Greek. -AlexiusComenus

Souls immortal?
Yep, a can o' worms.

Actually, I know some Christians who deny that everyone's soul is immortal. In fact, they have quite a few scriptures that they use to support their position, but it basically is based on the idea that an immortal soul was not a Christian concept originally, but rather a view based on Greek Philosophy. In fact, the argument is actually integral to an answer to the question 'Why would you want to become a Christian?', since it says 'because only Christians have eternal life (given to them by God)'.


 * Sure. Ask the average Christian what will happen after death and they will reply that their soul will rise up to heaven. But Chistian dogma has always taught the resurrection of the body. The whole "soul" notion is technically speaking a manichaean heresy.
 * Just a comment. resurrection body according to the Apostlic Creed? Then I added the Orthodox Faithful don't confess, although its content they are agree. They confess the Necean Creed which says "the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come". And the eternal life is a gift in the world to come according to the dogma. As for "rising up to the Heaven" it is a preveledge for saints and blessed.
 * Don't Christians hold that EVERYONE has a soul, it is only the fate of that soul that is dependent on accepting Christianity (plus certain other conditions that vary from sect to sect)?

Exile 22:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, a combination of Prevenient grace and the Baptism of desire can even allow non-Christians to enter Paradise. Furthermore, Christianity teaches that under no circumstance are we allowed to say for absolute certainty that any particular individual is in Perdition, and contrary to popular belief this even applies to excommunicated persons. I forget exactly where to find this in the Catechism, but I do recall that it was reaffirmed by Vatican II. This only applies to Perdition (Hell); you can express yourself if you feel completely certain of a relatively ethical person being in Paradise (Heaven). In fact, the Church can even do this by declaring a person Servant of God/Venerable/Blessed/Saint. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Christian Bible states at genesis 2:7 that man became a soul when the breath of life was breathed into him. at genesis 1:29 and 2:19 it is evident that the writer considers animals to have life as a soul. genesis 19:19 Lot asks that his soul be allowed to live on. exodus 4:19 God told Moses to return to Egypt since those who were hunting for his soul were all dead. exodus 12:16 God told the Isrealites to do only what every soul needs to eat. there are hundres of references in the bible that point to the soul being not an immortal separatable part of the human body but actually being the living body.a person. Ezekiel 18:4 Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.

see also ecclesiastes 9:5 Kljenni 17:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Other comments
Hey! Somebody should really expound on the word pneuma, which I think is another Greek word for "soul", which also means "breath", but may be a different connotation.


 * This corresponds with the Egyptian Ka. The ancient Greek concept was the "psyche", more like the Egyptian Ba.

For all I know, it could be the Hebrew word which is associated with "soul", but I am obviously an amateur and don't know the biblical languages.

The tripartite soul, which is Plato's doctrine, should be mentioned, as should Augustinian doctrines of the soul, the Hellenistic doctrine of the perturbations of the soul, and the influence of all of these on subsequent religious thought. That is, someone who is not so uneducated, young, and secularized in education as myself. --JQ

Another idea for views to mention are the ancient Chinese notions of hun and po. I believe that in the world of the living we are faced with only two choices to believe: either the soul is mortal or it is not. If the soul is mortal then we like to believe in teachings like resurection. if the soul is immortal the we choose beliefs like re-incarnation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.220.5.28 (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Otherkin/therianthropy
I've just added the note (in the Other part) about Otherkin/therianthropy; however, I'm very concious of the fact that I worded it extremely badly and as if the phenomena are considered invalid/delusional. Which is most certainlly not what I'm trying to convey- not only because of the "no bias" policy, but because I'm Otherkin myself! Kistaro 22:11 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * Hi, some people are now deleting the mention to otherkin from the article. They made no mention of it on this Talk page before doing so. I can't think of any valid policy reason for removing it.
 * Some idiot said that any mention of otherkin should be removed because it's a mental disorder. That's not exactly an argument that Wikipedia is interested in. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Belief in Purgatory wacky?
Is Wiki a Protestants-only club? I find it very INTERESTING, to say the least that Purgatory and "soul sleep" are brushed aside as mere wacky, loony, minority fringe beliefs in Christianity. Dogface 14:48, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Actually, Roman teaching has more to do with Purgatory than soul sleep, the concept of having to wait for the Sun and Earth to explode before entering the afterlife. A soul is cleansed in Purgatory in its own time, however long it takes, and then advances to everlasting Paradise. Once in Purgatory rather than Perdition proper, the soul will eventually be admitted to Paradise. One can't go from Purgatory to Perdition. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Regardless of one's opinion of the idea of an intermediate state between death and final beatitude, it does rest on a reasonable idea. The Catholic idea of purgatory was developed to answer the problem of how those who die in grace, but without having paid their debt to justice may be saved.

Gax 21-6-06

Another partisan viewpoint surfaces in the very first sentence of this article, which identifies the "soul" as "the self-aware essence unique to a particular living being". There's not a general agreement on this. Many sectors of Hinduism and Buddhism, for example, consider the soul as universal, immanent or transmigratory. It does not serve the reader well to begin with a sectarian concept.Fconaway 23:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Bodies cease to exist at death?
"people cease to exist, both mind and body, at death" ... this needs better wording (and I can't think of a satisfactory way to do so offhand, without making the sentence very bulky) but I think it is quite rare for bodies to "cease to exist" at death. Muke Tever 06:38, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) True - however it is even rarer for bodies to remain intact - and any one of us contains a number of atoms that once were part of Caesar. Exile 22:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a violation of the law of conservation of energy including matter, as worded. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Immaterial"
What on earth are you talking about snoyes? I see no references suggesting the "immaterial" property of the soul here. I don't know anyone who thinks the soul is immaterial. Quite to the contrary, there is are a goodly number of people who believe it has a weight, or can be visable when departing a dying person. there have been a variety of films regarding this topic. Please cite your sources, and do some research before undoing others work. thank you. Sam Spade 08:54, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * "there is are a goodly number of people who believe it has a weight, or can be visable when departing a dying person."
 * Sources? I don't deny that some people believe this, what I do deny is that the common definition does not include the "immaterial" property.
 * I added a cross-ref to the "soul has weight" wiki article. See also my comment below.  Whether "many people believe the soul has weight" or not, this seems to be a strong meme that derives from the same 1907 source. --Psm 05:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Please cite your sources"
 * ,, , , etc.
 * "do some research before undoing others work"
 * Throwing stones in glass houses.


 * - snoyes 09:00, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your citations. I appologise for insinuating lack of research on your part. Sam Spade 09:49, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Scientists have tried to measure the soul." Soul is religious term and religious terms cannot be used in science. So scientists have tried to measure what? Please explain in scientific terms. Tkorrovi 22:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wishful Thinking
I can accept it as it now stands. I think its pretty obvious tho why atheists wouldn't accept spiritual or religious concepts, so I don't see a need to go on at great length about it, and I think the concept of an afterlife is more what is viewed as wishful thinking by atheists, somewhat different from the soul itself. Funny that by eastern thought (particularly buddhism) an afterlife/rebirth is seen as an unfortunate circumstance resulting from lack of enlightenment, and parinirvana isn't so very different from the atheist conception of death. So maybe rather than wishful thinking, the concept of the soul is more based in cynicism ;) Of course buddhists don't necessarilly agree that their is a soul per se either, tending to reject the Hindu concept of Atman. Sam Spade 06:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam >I think its pretty obvious tho why atheists wouldn't accept spiritual or religious concepts< I disagree, it may be obvious to you but this is most certainly not the general case; I posit that to many or even most theists there is nothing obvious about atheists reasoning at all. In many communities the idea of atheism shocks people to the core and they have no way of mentally dealing with it or the atheists reasoning >the concept of an afterlife is more what is viewed as wishful thinking by atheists< Yes and it is the soul that is the supposed entity that lives the afterlife or is the mechanism that transmits the essence of the deceased to another body or to some ethereal state. So the concept of soul and the concept of afterlife are inextricably linked and both are rejected by thinking atheists as wishful thinking motivated by simple fear of annihilation. >Of course Buddhists don't necessarily agree that their is a soul per se either< This is one of the major problems many have with Buddhism, how does the concept of anatta (no self) square with re-incarnation. If there is no abiding self what is it that gets reborn. Some modern atheist followers of Buddhist teaching reject re-incarnation.--Nick-in-South-Africa 08:17, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) -

Sam you reverted my edit and restored >Many atheists reject the concept of a soul as they reject religious concepts generally< The problem I have with 'as they reject religious concepts generally' is Firstly that it's not true. Atheism is nothing more than being without belief in any deity. It's perfectly consistent to be an atheist and be a follower of a non theistic religion such as certain sections of Buddhism which have religious concepts which said atheists do not reject. Even some theistic religions have concepts that many atheists do not reject, so your generalisation is inaccurate. Secondly this article is about soul not atheism, so the atheist position on other religious concepts, especially unnamed ones is not relevant, the proper place for this sort of thing is in the atheist article.

I'll leave your compelling evidence phrasing, even though I think it reads badly as it seems you have an attachment to it even though it means exactly the same as my amendment.--Nick-in-South-Africa 22:05, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC

The philosophical view
OK, so my long addition in the intro. on Aristotle's view was a bit much. But his view of the soul is very influential, and reasonably straightforward, so why not start with that? Then the various religious views of the soul can be compared and contrasted with it. Also it is a powerful, and to me convincing, non-religious conception of the soul and has an equal right to appear in the introduction as the religious concepts. Wouldn't at least my fellow atheists agree with that? I've added it back as a one liner taking up less space than the religious views, no one outside the Spanish inquisition could disagree with that could they?


 * "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Cardinal Fang, bring me the comfy chair...!" I was the one who moved the Aristotelian stuff downward. You raise a good point, that there are two distinct user groups making hay with the term "soul," the religionists/spiritualists and the philosophers. Each camp should be discussed. If you and the philosophers would like to go first, that's cool by me, so I moved the Aristotelian stuff back up to the top. However, an encyclopedia article cannot start in anyone's corner, but must start with a generalized and contextualizing introduction, so I reinstated the introductory paragraph, adding a reference to both the philosopher and spiritualist user camps. I left atheism in the religion section because their thoughts about "soul" are not being discussed as being within a particular philosophical school but rather as a reaction to the religious view. --Gary D 19:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Francis Crick
This article should have some mention of Francis Crick's Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. &mdash;Rory &#9786; 15:08, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can add it to the References section. --Gary D 18:16, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * References should be a list of materials used in compiling the article, not a list of further reading. Unfortunately I haven't read the book, but as a nobel-prize winning chemist's view of the soul I think it probably merrits mention by someone who has read it. (Francis Crick was co-discoverer of the significance of DNA, in case anyone questions his credentials.) &#8212;Rory &#9786; 00:07, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Interesting; I don't know if Wikipedia maintains that distinction in its references to References. --Gary D 00:20, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Types of souls
The following is from the essay referenced. Some food for thought...

"Soul" is a blatantly overused term that conflates the following completely independent conceptual entities:


 * Immortal soul: An entity generated by forces within the brain, which survives the destruction of the neurons that originally generated it, and is in some formulations intrinsically indestructible under the laws of the ultimate reality. (If this soul continues independent, internally generated cognition equalling the capabilities of a physical brain, someone has a lot of explaining to do to with respect to split-brain patients, lobotomy patients, amnesiacs, and other forms of brain damage.)


 * Extraphysical soul: An entity which operates outside the laws of physics. (Strictly speaking this doesn't make logical sense, since anything that affects physical reality is part of physical law, but under some circumstances we might find it useful to separate that law into two parts - for example, if some physical patterns obey mathematical rules and others are totally resistant to rational analysis.)


 * Weird-physics neurology: Neural information-processing that uses the "weird" laws of physics. "Weird" is any physical pattern not visible in everyday, macroscopic life, or any pattern which isn't Turing-computable. We generally don't use the word "soul" in discussing this possibility.


 * Morally-valent soul: A physical entity representing the atomic unit of decision-making and moral responsibility. I'm reasonably sure this doesn't exist except as a high-level game-theoretical abstraction embodied as an "atomic" element of social cognition.


 * Qualia: The basic stuff of conscious experience, redness of red, etc.


 * Theological soul: A piece of God integrated into the human mind.


 * Mind-state preservation: Let's say our descendants/successors invent a time machine (or a limited version thereof such as a "time camera") and read out everyone's complete neural diagram, memories, etc. at the moment of death. That would be one form of mind-state preservation; any immortal soul that preserved memories, or information from which memories could be reconstructed, would also count.


 * Self-continuity: "If you go into a duplicator and two beings come out, which one is you? Is a perfect duplicate of your brain you? Does continuity of identity require continuity of awareness or just continuity of memories?"  Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam. I don't think such questions have real answers; or rather, the answer is whatever you decide it is. Though John K Clark's decision is worth mentioning: "I am not a noun, I am an adjective. I am anything that behaves in a John-K-Clarkish way."

It's at least conceptually possible that we have all these things, each as separate entities. For example, our brains might generate a structure of ordinary matter and energy that survives death but doesn't contain any useful information; our brain might also utilize noncomputable physical laws, simply to speed up information-processing, without that being intrinsic to qualia; we might have qualia generated by ordinary information-processing; our mind-state might be preserved by friendly aliens with time-cameras, or preserved at death by beings running our Universe as a computer simulation; God could place a part of Verself in each of us but translate it into ordinary neurocode running on a neurological module; and so on. Unfortunately, the confusion on these issues now runs so deep that any discovery in any of these areas would be taken to confirm the existence of an immortal extraphysical morally-valent et-cetera soul.  Adraeus 22:45, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of "Atheist views" section
Adraeus, I think I should just revert what you deleted since your edit comment was rude and unconstructuve (you can't just say "fallacious" and "ingorant" and skip off). However I'm sort of okay with the removal of the Atheist view section altogether; I think it's fairly obvious that an atheist isn't going to believe in the religious definition of souls. How do you imagine a "the atheist view" section of this article going?


 * First of all, an atheist is merely a person who lacks theistic beliefs of any kind for whatever reason. There are two types of atheists: weak atheists and a strong atheists. Strong atheists actively posit a disbelief in the existence of gods while weak atheists neutrally lack belief in gods altogether. Whether or not an atheist believes or disbelieves in the concepts of soul is not a component of the definition of atheism. There are some atheists which reject the concept of soul altogether and there are some, like Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, whom are informed enough to know of the various types of soul concepts and are tolerant of the possibility of a "soul" existing. That said, there are also theists that believe or disbelieve in soul concepts but that does not make belief or disbelief in souls a component of the definition of theism or atheism. I don't think a section that describes atheists as lacking belief in souls would be fair or accurate. Certainly a section regarding organized forms of belief or disbelief in souls would be appropriate though. Adraeus 20:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could put some of what you've written here into a new "Atheist views" section; revision, even wholesale revision, usually goes down better than deletion. --Gary D 20:54, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * To the extent that the word "soul" has acquired a religious sense (if not, this Wiki article would probably not exist) over the years, I think it's perfectly accurate and fair to state something like "atheists do not as a rule believe in the soul". From there you can go into "well, some do for some definition of the word 'soul' and/or some definition of 'atheist'" and enlighten us with your great learning, Adraeus. --Fleacircus 22:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't tolerate the possibility of souls existing. --EliezerYudkowsky (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is important to have a section detailing skeptics' criticism of the concept of a soul. This seems obvious to me. JmalcolmG 17:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC) JmalcolmG 6/18/07


 * I am a strong atheist myself, and I find this discussion interesting. I think that if there is to be an atheist section, then it must state explicitly that an atheist's belief or disbelief in the "soul" can depend on semantics - i.e. the definition of a soul. If a soul is an incorporeal, conscious thingy that floats off into space when someone dies, then an atheist is not likely to believe in it. If "soul" is a word used to describe a human's perception of the state of consciousness which is created by synapses firing in the brain, then an atheist might very well believe in "souls". Some of the definitions given in the article are similar to this latter definition, and are therefore not necessarily outside the realm of belief of a strong atheist such as myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.249.92 (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Aristotle's view on soul?
Hello, I thought I'd bring up a few things here that I'd like someone (who knows a little better) to add. In the section on aristotle's view of the soul, the term "core essense" I think is a little vague; it may be a little easier for some readers to understand if you were to use a final cause to describe what the soul was (i.e. "animating principle" .... as stated in De Anima, although I can't remember where). Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Aristotle believe in the immortality of the rational soul?

"[...]This is a state, or a potential for actual, or 'second', activity. "The axe has an edge for cutting" was, for him, analogous to "humans have bodies for rational activity," and the potential for rational activity thus constituted the essence of a human soul" ... wouldn't it be a little more accurate to also make the distinction of the different types of souls (i.e. vegitative soul, animal soul, and rational soul), and state that the Human, rational soul also contained characteristcs of the animal soul?

just a few simple questions, sorry if you've already been over this. Peace. -Cripps

Typo at Socrates and Plato?
1. the logos should be alias of superego 2. the thymos - of ego OK with my corrections?

-mingis

Christians without souls
Concerning these points from the article: Anybody know the names of some of these groups? I have definitely heard of the first one and maybe the second. Names should probably just go right into the article.
 * 1) A few Christian groups do not believe in the soul, and hold that people cease to exist, both mind and body, at death;
 * 2) Another minority of Christians believe in the soul, but don't regard it as inherently immortal.

Seventh-day Adventists would go into the first group. I know that there are a few others that would go into that group as well, but I couldn't tell you who. In searching for other denominations that believe in Conditional Immortality (a term commonly used by those who do not believe in an immortal soul), I did find a rather highly cited page called Champions of Conditional Immortality. Also here are several verses commonly used by people who believe in "Conditional Immortality". There is also the wikipedia page on Annihilationism. Maybe including at least some of these could help remove the bias in the christian section of this article. Korbenrusek 20:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Evangelical Bias
Personally, I think that this early part of the Christian section of the article is clearly biased and should be changed: "Different Christian groups dispute whether this reward/punishment depends upon doing good deeds, or merely upon believing in God and in Jesus - although the Bible is clear that salvation itself is a gift, and 'cannot' be earned by good deeds. Salvation of the soul happens simply by acknowledging that Jesus died for the forgiveness of your sins and is your personal Lord and saviour."

In this section, the author leads us to believe that we are about to be treated to an evenhanded treatment of the various views on issues of the soul and salvation within the group that the public refers to as "Christianity." Alas, we are almost immediately assaulted with the notion that Evangelical Christianity is the claimant to the "correct" view of soteriology--complete with evangelical phrases. ( To add insult to injury, the author doesn't even address one of the main problems of that view, which is the Bible's treatment of choice itself.To what extent, if any, are we free to make choices? Does the concept of our acting as an agent in our own salvation not meet direct opposition in the concept of grace? Such questions are just ignored ... it's outright "I'm right, you're wrong!" fundementalism.)Eskatos 10:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, and recent edits have made the section seem even more POV and perhaps even include original research (although I have to admit to not being an expert on Christianity so I can't say for sure, but some of the things seem original enough to me). -Parallel or Together? 10:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The entire Christian section is seriously deficient in my opinion, if it an attempt to discuss the range of Christian opinions on the Soul. As noted above by others, it displays marked bias; furthermore no mention is made of some key doctrinal areas relating to the soul, such as the resurrection of the body, and how that relates to doctrines of the soul. The section on Valentinus is heterodox to say the least, too.


 * Much of this article's Christian content is denominationally (I have no idea if this is even a word, but it should be) biased and should be revised. I tried to do a little by adding in the parenthetical about Hell being an eternal torment, but maybe others can help in checking the rest of the biases.  Very tricky situation. Psychophant 23:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of comments relating to Dr Ian Stevenson
I removed the following piece:
 * "Dr. Ian Stevenson results could also be discredited as a form of cold reading where the child can make any claims, and with all the cases of deaths in human history to search through the chances of finding a match to those claims are very likely."

There is clearly a lack of NPOV in this addition. Dr Ian Stevenson has no alterior motives. If you wish to comment on him, at least do some basic research beforehand. --Redxela Sinnak 13:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned you may be pushing a personal agenda there, Redxela. Dr. Stevenson's research is interesting but he is still outside the mainstream of science and criticism of his personal techniques must surely be permitted... 193.129.65.37 10:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Split Brain Experiments
How would advocates of the soul respond to evidence from the split-brain experiments?

165.230.149.175 02:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read 'Mysteries' by Colin Wilson - or for that matter, any other book on the occult by Colin Wilson. He looks into both 'split-brain' and 'the soul', and finds that they are NOT mutually exclusive. Oh BTW, your comments do not contribute to the article :) Redxela Sinnak 06:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

PubMed reference
In the "Science and the soul" section there is extended discussion of a survey from PubMed, but without a reference or date. Can these be provided? Halcatalyst 05:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Bible quotes
The section marked "In favor of a conscious non-material entity ("soul") that survives bodily death" is just a large chunk of quotes (some very long) form the Bible. How does this represent a case in favor of there being a soul? It's just a long list of references to it from one (unscientific) work. I'm all in favor of some of these quotes being here but shouldn't they be a little more selective and under a different heading (say: References to "souls" from within the Bible)? 193.129.65.37 10:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I'm in favor of the quotes being pared back. --Smithfarm 13:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Have done this. In fact there is no need for any of these quotes.  The article is simply about the concept of soul as held, in this case, by Christians.  There is no need for the justification for those beliefs  (ie. the quotes from the Bible).  So you could remove all of those quotes unless someone objects - with good reason - as to why this should not be done... Marcus22 10:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned sentence from Islamic beliefs section
The following sentence doesn't make any sense and appears to be orphaned so I removed it:


 * "in the name of God" :"They ask you about soul say that soul is secret of God and you are not given of science except too little"

If anyone can provide some background on this and a reference to where the quote is from, please do so. --Smithfarm 13:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The reference is Quran, surrah Bani Israeel, (17:85) The exact meanings by Yusuf Ali 017.085 They ask thee concerning the Spirit (of inspiration). Say: "The Spirit(cometh) by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (O men!)" Here he have used the word spirit instead of soul. In Quran, the word used is "Rooh", which means "soul".

Science approach to soul is nonsense
Please modify the revelant chapter. No serious modern scientist (including many religious people) is interested in research, proof or discovery of the soul. This is held as concept of personal beliefs, not verifable and not influencing medicine or science, except through ethics or psychology. --anon.


 * Well, not quite. While scientsts do not pursue research into the soul as distinct from the mind, many scientists believe in a soul as meaning something other than "mind".  Science, however, is by definition concerned with material explanations of replicably observable phenomena.  The soul as something distinct from the mind thus is not the object of scientific inquiry, although the concept of a soul and the belief in that concept are, as the paragraphs on Wilson's, Crick's, and Dennett's work and positions discuss.--Atemperman 00:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, the bit about Carruthers's work is psychotherapy, not methodologically-naturalistic science. While interesting, it doesn't belong in this section.--Atemperman 00:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Second on the rewrite. The whole section looks suspiciously like pseudoscience. -- 212.213.204.99 12:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A scientist will not declare 'soul' to be nonsense without a provable fact...currently none exists...only circumstantial evidence...most famous that of Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, Massachusetts http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp ...yep lost quarter of a ounce or 21 grams...now soul is postulated to exist as pure energy ie without earthly material...so 21 grams is a lot of energy...hiroshima was produced by only 600mg...so some scientist would have to conduct a research in a closed and carefully weighed room at time of death to detect even the smallest of change which occurs repeatedly in all subjects and reproducible...should happen soon...
 * Well, strictly speaking, that 21 grams is some kind of strange American mystic belief that has no known scientific proof behind it. (Please read to the end of the Snopes article.) Modern scientific explanations of consciousness do not require any mysterious 'soul matter' or 'soul energy'. Please see Cartesian theater for an example where using normal matter for a soul leads to. ;) -- 212.213.204.99 12:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The "soul has been scientifically weighed" is covered in the wiki article on Duncan MacDougall (doctor). I updated the intro accordingly.  There have been many efforts by folks to find any other published work to replicate this work, and they've come up empty.  So don't change this to "many people" because as best as anybody can tell, the "21 grams" meme comes from the 3/4 ounce measurement in the good doctor's 1907 experiment on a tuberculosis patient.  Also, I removed the reference to "mass" because the doctor in question was specifically confused about the difference between mass and weight, and his measurements were on weight.  --Psm 05:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The soul is an imaginary concept. It is not scientific. This article should start with the line "the soul is concept imagined by various religions and, while probably most humans would argue for its real existence, does not, in fact, exist as an actual entity"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrrealtime (talk • contribs) 01:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure you're not mistaking the soul for Bigfoot? :) 204.52.215.14 (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying Bigfoot is fake or even improbable? The idea of Bigfoot is scientifically more plausible and testable then the soul, which is immaterial. --207.68.234.177 (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please troll elsewhere.--207.68.234.177 (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Animal soul?
Beliefs about whether animals have souls should be included, too.

in Genesis of the Bible God created the living souls (animals) of the earth see genesis 1:24 Kljenni 23:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, they do. There word "animal" itself would not exist otherwise. It is derived from "Animes," the plural form of the Latin noun for "spirit." A spirit of something that lives or lived is essentially the concept of the soul by definition. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add it to the article. But be careful not to say "oh, they do"! Remember that this is the religious belief of a select group of people, and cannot be presented as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.249.92 (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Buddhism entry
This section seems to have been re-written/amended recently by quite a biased source, that I would imagine is Theravadin. It is now a bit of a mess! There are several statements added to this section that are biased expressions of opinion, or unclear arguments, or simply contradictory.

The views expressed in this section that the author has passed off as the official Buddhist position include: "Nirvana is solely recognized as being distinct", which is not particularly apt for some Mahayana and Zen schools; the 'three-minds' theory, which is not found in all Buddhist schools but is presented as such, and is in addition poorly explained and confusing for the lay reader; in this poorly-written sentence, the author states "Buddhism's stance on many beliefs of soul after Death was explained in Brahmajala Sutta", implying that Buddhism has a singular, unified opinion that stems directly from the Pali canon, which is certainly not true for all Buddhist schools. The worst of these is the statement towards the end of the entry; "Some say that the self endures after death, some say it perishes. Both are wrong and their error is most grievous". This is not contextualised as (Theravadin) Buddhist opinion, but rather stated as fact, which is against Wiki impartiality.

The author's positing of a "Buddhist orthodoxy" and "original teachings of the Buddha" is also questionable, since different Buddhist schools have different orthodoxies and Buddhist hermeneutics allows for an ahistorical approach to Buddhist teachings. The author's suggestion that modern, Western Buddhists are conditioned by materialism implies that they have been indoctrinated by a false ideology that prevents them from seeing the 'true' Buddhist position - this seems a rather arrogant and again biased point of view. The author fails to fully address the arguments of contemporary Buddhist thinkers, stating merely that "There is very little ground for [their] argument to stand on".

Overall, I think this entry is inappropriate for Wikipedia in that expresses a series of biased opinions, having erased the previous much more balanced, scholarly and equivocal entry. Whilst I am a scholar of Buddhism, I do not feel qualified to re-compile this entry and I appeal to anyone with the knowledge and ability to do so. Jamiego 11:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Very messy section on Buddhism, IMO. It needs cleaning up and revising. I'll try to work out the differences later on in few days and then edit if I can to make it cleaner and neat. In the meantime, feel free to edit to make it more cleaner, i.e. Cut long paragrahs into smaller paragraphs.. Oh and btw, please leave us your signature so that people can distinguish between stances/views of each seperate person. Monkey Brain 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had made a few nips and tucks, hopefully putting some biased views into context and correcting a few mistakes. Still don't like the entry, the Tibetan 3 mind bit is really woolly and comes across as the orthodox position, and the ending of the entry is terrible.


 * I can sort of follow the explanation of the Tibetan three mind concept, but the last sentence isn't a sentence at all: "Some buddhists said about plants or divisible consciousnesses." Said what? (I'm not qualified in the slightest on the subject of Tibetan Buddhism, but can recognize grammatical errors.)--OldCommentator (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've removed references to Buddhism from the Pantheism entry as they were erroneous. That section is quite bad too, but I'm definitely not going to get involved with it! Jamiego 13:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have flagged this section for the reaons previously outlined by the above editor. Overall, this section presents sectarian doctrines and positions as definitive or universal views throughtout Buddhism, both ancient and modern.  It fails, for example, to mention the possibility accepted by a number of reputable modern scholars that the "not / no self" doctrine in early Buddhism etc only applies to conditioned, impermanent phenomena, allowing for the possibility for the existence of an inexpressible real and permanent "self".--Stephen Hodge 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I must agree - this entire section *needs to be rewritten* be someone who understands the various positions and debates on the 'self' that exist and have existed in the various buddhisms. 86.145.189.101 21:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the two comments above. The article makes sweeping, often unsubstantiated statements, and is heavily biased in one direction of interpretation (mainly that of Theravada Buddhism, and with largely unsupported references to Tibetan Buddhism). No mention is made of how for centuries there have been Buddhists who understand the early teachings of the Buddha implicitly to point in the direction of an ineffable Self or Soul (in the sphere of Nirvana), or of how in some Mahayana Buddhist sutras the Buddha Nature is specifically described as Soul or Self (atman), or of how 'bhutatathata' has been described by Malalasekara as the 'soul of the universe' (Encyclopaedia of Buddhism). Also, the idea that because a continuum of mentation is changing it cannot be described as 'soul' (as usually understood) is ludicrous. Even the Hindus do not believe that the reincarnating person is changeless from life to life. The Wikipedia definition of 'soul' in this articles states: 'In many religions and parts of philosophy, the soul is the immaterial part of a person. It is usually thought to consist of one's thoughts and personality, and can be synonymous with the spirit, mind or self.' No word here of changelessness. By this definition, Buddhism certainly has the notion of a soul. It can be argued that the karmically charged flow of skandhas from one life to another is precisely the bearer of the character (personality) of the individual, and that this is the immaterial part of his/her being - the 'soul', according to the Wikipedia definition. The section needs to be much more balanced and capacious in the issues it covers than is currently the case. Suddha (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "for centuries there have been Buddhists who understand the early teachings of the Buddha implicitly to point in the direction of an ineffable Self or Soul (in the sphere of Nirvana)." This is a heterodox view. I have three sources at hand stating this.
 * "Even the Hindus do not believe that the reincarnating person is changeless from life to life." Yes but the Atman, the inmost consciousness, does not change. The subject of experience is unchanging. That is rejected by the Buddha and all orthodox Buddhists.
 * "By this definition, Buddhism certainly has the notion of a soul." Yes, I agree. The Dalai Lama who is an orthodox Madhyamaka has stated this. Mitsube (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Hindu Atman, it is from the Buddha's perspective a delusion. The enlightened consciousness of the arahant is the ending of the belief in "I", the mind's primary way of grappling with and making sense of the world through reification. To whatever extent the Upanishads are attempts to describe meditative experience (and some scholars hold that the pre-Buddhist Upanishads are entirely speculative, as they do not describe meditation or ways to induce samadhi), they were likely written by those who had attained the sixth jhana (the sphere of infinite consciousness, in which one feels united with infinite consciousness) and no further. If they associate it with certain pleasurable feelings then it may have in fact been a lower jhana, if any kind of samadhi. Mitsube (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing part of the Research section
I'm cutting the following out of "Research on the concept of the soul":


 * "But as several theologians and philosophers have noted (e.g. Keith Sutherland), claims by Dennett and his ilk are prompted by the philosophical agenda of pure materialism. One counter-argument points out that just because the brain has regions that deal with colour and other aspects of vision, one does not argue that the genes produce an area to promote the illusion of a blue sky. By analogy, if there is a 'God sense' just as there is a sense of vision, it seems to argue for the objective existence of an extra-mundane reality. Finally, claims of genetic determinism have suffered a serious blow after the human genome project reduced the number of genes to fewer than 25,000. There is thus no longer sufficient information content in the genome to determine such details. Dennett has been accused by his arch-rival in philospy, John Searle, of implying that only he amongst modern philosophers does useful research, whilst others such as Searle philosophise into a vacuum. This self-praise has resulted in Dennet being widely seen by the media as the sole researcher of the soul. However, David Chalmers might make a stronger claim for this, as he has by calling attention to the existence of the hard problem of consciousness pointed out the yawning gap between physicalist research and the subjective homonculus or soul."

This section has a biased tone and is not particularly comprehensible. Additionally, the last section doesn't seem relevant to the topic. Is anyone familiar enough with the positions advocated here to salvage something out of this? Scherlin 05:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Scherlin, I agree with you. The paragraph seemed antagonistic, and was very muddled, but I think the article would benefit from including some of the topics of the paragraph, such as: discrete brain regions and their relationship to the concept of the soul (brain lesion studies discredit the concept of a unified soul); whether there are enough genes to regulate a "God sensation." (a counterpoint to those who say they aren't would be that that sensation, indeed consciousness as a whole, may be an emergent property, or that the sensation could be formed from the *interaction* of the genes. (( I believe most enzymes etc. are a conglomeration of more than one protein))   ) The last section is indeed irrelevant, belonging perhaps in the bio. pages of Dennet and Searle.--JmalcolmG 17:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Original Research
I tagged the following session as original research: "A search of the PubMed research literature database shows the following numbers of articles with the indicated term in the title:

1. brain – 167,244 2. consciousness – 2,918 (842, 29%, of these articles also include “brain” in the database entry) 3. soul - 552 (40, 7%, of these articles also include “brain” in the database entry. Many of these articles deal with medical ethics issue such as the implications of religious beliefs on decisions about life support for people in persistent vegetative states)"

This data must be cited. --Elrafael 00:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My research indicates that we are all eternal souls who plan our lives, including our greatest challenges, prior to birth for purposes of spiritual growth. For more information, please see Robert Schwartz

major query on "science and the soul"
This currently reads "Science...is silent on the question of whether non-material or supernatural entities, such as the soul, can or do exist". Wikipedia's own article on science describes it as "any system of knowledge attained by verifiable means", but anything supernatural is by definition unverifiable.

The current wording suggests a neutral viewpoint on behalf of science towards supernatural concepts such as the soul, ie that science cannot disprove their existence - it suggests that science is silent whereas it would speak up against it if there was proof that the soul did or did not exist. In fact, these concepts such as "soul", since they lack any evidence or a provable test for their existence, are outside the realm of science altogether. The current wording comes close the the logical fallacy of negative proof, whereby science's inability to disprove their existence counts as proof that they do (or may) exist.

Further, it should be made clear that either the soul is entirely immaterial (and thus all the scientific articles mentioned are in fact pseudo-science of quackery) or else it is material, in which case fromt he point of view of science, the lack of any evidence of its existence, under the burden of proof, states that it does not exist. - PocklingtonDan 23:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That is ridiculous, even from a scientific outlook. The lack of evidence does not support or deny the existence of such evidence. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You sound like a creationist. --71.99.3.112 (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

first sentence
What is an ethereal substance, and why is it in italics? At least it implies correctly that souls don't exist.

How do we know that souls exist?
How do we know that souls exist in us? Can anyone please answer that for me - I'm just wondering about that. i know it's difficult to explain scientifically, just like how it is hard to describe the meaning of love and hate in such technical terms. At least try to explain in ur own words if u can. Thanks. Easy.We don't KNOW that souls exist. Some people THINK they do, others think they don't, others are unsure.

Exile 22:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

we know the soul exists because we know that the soul is life, psyche, nephesh. the living body whether physical or spiritual is the soul Kljenni 23:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have written an article on the soul and the resurrection of it based on Bibical scripture. If any one on is interested contact me at maranatha2@comcast.net Ray71.197.184.225 07:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We cannot know that souls exist through any scientific means. The burden of proof, fortunately, rests on those who claim that the soul exists. For an interesting article on why the soul and evolution may be mutually incompatible, see: Evolution of the Soul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.242.167 (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we know we even exist? All we see is interpretations of our sensory organs. Hell, when you come down to it, all of us are just electrons floating about. Who knows what we are, really.


 * ...which leads us to Descartes, who began his famous philosophical monologue by assuming that nothing exists, and then stating "I think therefore I am", thus proving that something exists. Sorry for straying off topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.249.92 (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Mam, Your Soul is decribed in the Bible as Gods Breath. Your Soul is in fact the Holy Spirit. After he died on the cross Jesus breathed the Holy Spirt onto his desciples in the Upper Room as described in the Bible (John 20:22). Your Soul being that it is Gods Breath should simply tell you that it is the Holy Spirit. If you receive your Last Rites at the time of your death the Preist will lock the Holy Spirit within you with the anointing of the sick and your last rites. One God in three persons. The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is within you and he is your eternal soul. He is the good news.

Islamic beliefs
the paragraph provides totally incorrect information with respect to the Sunni or Shi'a. it could be a mystical or a Sufism view point. and in all its citations from the Qur'an it gives a different meaning !.

i ll will discuss some points as an example, the article says :

1. According to the Qur'an of Islam (15:29), the creation of man involves Allah or an Angel of Allah "breathing" a soul into him

for example, (15:29) in Qur'an actually says: " so, when i fashioned him completely and breathed to him (Adam)  the soul which i created for him, then fall (talking is to angles) down prostrating yourselves unto him. "

2. his intangible part of an individual's existence is "pure" at birth and has the potential of growing and achieving nearness to God if the person leads a righteous life. At death the person's soul transitions to an eternal afterlife of bliss, peace and unending spiritual growth

there is no soul growing or nearness to Allah soul in the Islamic view. This is more like an esoteric and mystical interpretations like Sufism.

the same for the last sentence .... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borhan0 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

?
Who is Frank R. Zindler? (footnote 10) --VKokielov 20:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Formerly a professor of biology and geology, Frank R. Zindler is now a science writer. He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, and the American Schools of Oriental Research. He is the Ohio Spokesperson for American Atheists.

Frank Zindler is Director of the American Atheist Press, and Editor of The American Atheist Magazine. A former professor of biology and geology, is also an internationally renowned science writer and linguist. He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society and the American Schools of Oriental Research. Mr. Zindler is also a member of the Jesus Seminar, and an expert in a number of esoteric, biblical-era languages.

Pics?
I think this art. needs some pics, dont u? --WoodElf 13:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Pantheism
I have removed this section. First, Pantheism as a whole doesn't speak to the question of the nature of the soul. Rather, it's a label which refers to a diverse set of belief systems unified by certain claims about god. Specific religious groups which can be described as pantheistic do have views on the nature of the soul, and some of those are dealt with in the religious views section, notably the section on Valentinus, which addresses the gnostic beliefs this section addressed almost exclusively. Secondly, what specific group of Gnostics this section referred to was totally unclear - that's another diverse group without a unified stance on the question of the soul. I would have moved the material up into the religious views section - since Gnosticism is, after all, a religious view - if I had been able to figure out where it should be placed.--Colindownes 06:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Catholic view of the Soul
I'm not sure if this has already been discussed, but I think for contextual purposes, it may be important to add that the Church teaches that the soul and body are one (CCC 365, 382), and not two seperate entities (like the "prison" view of the Greeks).

The way I see it currently written, it shows that the Church teaches the idea of an eternal soul, as opposed to an immortal one. As the Church teaches it, only God is eternal (without beginning or end), as opposed to the idea of immortality (here meaning, "without end") - in this view, one can certainly see the philosophical implications of an eternal God and an eternal soul. For the Catholic, the soul certainly has a beginning in God.

So yeah, just my two cents :] Jjlongoria 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC) The true teaching by the Catholic Church on the Soul is the fact that your soul is the Holy Spirit within you. Your Soul is the Holy Spirit living within you. Your Soul is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Bible describes your Soul as Gods Breath. God breathed the Holy Spirit into his Disciples during the time they were in the Upper Room as described in the holy Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.59.62 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Brain lesions and Alzheimers:
Brain lesions and Alzheimer's disease are evidence against the concept of the soul, and should be incorporated into the main body of the article. --JmalcolmG 17:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Brain lesions and Alzheimers are conditions which inhibit the brain to function properly, namely with the collection of data. It is not evidence AGAINST a soul, especially if a soul works at a subconscious or below subconscious level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.86.209 (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So the soul that lives after death can't retain & collect data? Amazing! How do you discover this stuff? Considering that these conditions can affect virtually every facet of personality, what facet remains as the domain of "soul"? -anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.211.35 (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

How would we know Alzheimer's doesn't merely cause the brain to block the soul from collecting worldly data? The brain, for all we know, may be a sensory organ of sorts. (shrugs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.14 (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimers is a disease of the brain, not a disease of the mind or soul.


 * Actually it IS a disease of the mind, since the mind is a state that is determined by brain activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.249.92 (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger of non-Relgious Views and Scientific section?
The distinction between the two seems arbitrary to me, since the non-Religious views are based on scientific objections. I intend to merge the two. Also, I would like brain lesions and Alzheimer's disease etc. to be included as evidence against the concept of a soul. --JmalcolmG 17:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read Anthony Quinton's argument "The Soul". The fact that there are biological effects on a person's mental capacity does not necessarily tie it to being "evidence" against any formulation of the soul - rather, it only seems to indicate that the soul (as a means of personal identification) is expressed by and/or intricately connected to the physical body (including any problems with the physical body, since there are certainly identifiable physical conditions to these mental diseases). If your grandfather developed Alzheimer's, you wouldn't say, "well, he's clearly not my grandfather any longer."

In the interest of fairness, it'd be good of us to include counter-arguments to this "evidence" as well. Jjlongoria 21:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Atheism and agnosticism are positions on the existence of God, not the soul. I recommend that section's deletion altogether. IGlowInTheDark (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Smuggling Freud into Plato?
The logos equates to the mind (superego)....

The thymos comprises our emotional motive (ego) ...

The pathos equates to the appetite (id) ... 

It's not at all clear that Plato should be described in Freudian terms like "superego", "ego", and "id". I think this is making a big leap and ought to be deleted. --75.15.131.169 04:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm being bold and deleting it. --Bishop W ‏‎23:33, 24 ‎August ‎2007 (UTC)

Translation of Genesis 2:7
It seems appropriate to me to use the King James Version of Genesis 2:7, which reads, "And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Some other translations use "living being" or such; the KJV translation then would seem more appropriate for an article about Soul. Also, what about 1 Corinthians 15:45: "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit." Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Soul = Person
Soul is used for nephesh (Hebrew) psyche (Greek). SOUL is only a translated word. This word gives rise to misunderstanding about human being and brings a confusion. --88.247.171.132 (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As an energy Ruach = Pneuma
How work the body cells? Where take the body cells the power to work from? What gives to them the activity? Is it food? But the any dead body have also so much food. The any dead person are not as a rule therefore dead, because in his body has ran out of any food. The following table shows, which similarity have the different material things and the living bodies.

We can say, that the humans and animals live with carbon, oxygen and ruach, if we do not take into account the complexity of humans and animals.


 * The living bodies need carbon, oxygen, ruach to live.
 * The any material things need carbon, oxygen, fire to act.

A living body or a material thing is warm because of burning. Thus, according to this the fire and the ruach have similarity, although these are not same things. But their function are same. The sun gives energy. The plants take these energy. The plants make this through photosynthesis and the energy loaded carbon will stored in plants. The plants take only the carbon from carbon dioxide and give the rest gas-oxygen as waste gas. And conversely the humans and the animals also the woods etc. take only the oxygen from air. The fire or the ruach have a function that the energy in carbon comes out, so that all living bodies live or any unliving things run or burn. Through burning join again the carbon and oxygen, thereby it comes out as waste gas the carbon dioxide. And in this way the circle is completed. If such is the case, the ruach goes on to exist with carbon and oxygen. The ruach does not go on to exist, if there is not any carbon or oxygen; also it does not go on to exist in heaven where if these are not exists.


 * Gen. 2:7: Then the Lord God formed a man. He made him out of the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life (ruach) into him. And the man became a living person (nephesh).


 * Gen. 3:19: By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.'


 * Eccl. 3:19-21: Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal'' goes down into the earth?


 * Acts 2:29: Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. (...)  34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, 'The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand 35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'

The bible says about people, who go into heaven, but they are only 144.000 and they get it through a resurrection. The bible does not say that any souls go direct into heaven after death.--81.215.218.128 (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Quantum computation
From the article:

He posits that the mind is in fact not like a computer as generally understood, but rather a quantum computer, that can do things impossible on a classical computer, such as decide the halting problem.

This directly contradicts the text of quantum computer, which states that a quantum computer does not have the ability to solve anything that a normal one can't. --WikiSlasher (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I added an extra part in brackets but someone else might want to rewrite it to make it sound better. --WikiSlasher (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"In these traditions the soul is thought [...] to be the true basis for sapience"
I'm confused by this sentence - does it mean that sapience is a necessary condition for a soul? Wouldn't "sentience" make more sense here? --WikiSlasher (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It says that a soul is a necessary condition for sapience. Why would sentience be better? Ilkali (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sapience is "the ability of an organism or entity to act with judgment", whereas sentience is "the ability to feel or perceive subjectively." I just thought that the latter was more in line with what I thought the word "soul" meant. After all, Deep Blue could be said to be have been able to act with judgment, but you'd be hard-pressed to find somebody who would say it could perceive subjectively or that it has a soul. On the other hand, someone who had no real mental faculties, but could still experience sights, sounds etc. would still have a soul, right? --WikiSlasher (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

disputed existence
I don't think the article should give so little detail on the contention that the soul is, as a concept, bunk, hooey, guff, hogwash, etc. -anon

Soul
As you may have noticed, I have reverted your recent changes to Soul. The problem lies specifically with "It is the human mind itself, as made by God to be in his image." Asserting this in the lead does not conform with the neutral point of view policy though you may like to work on the "Religious views" section. The sentence of transcendence of the soul, while possibly less controversial, also couldn't be allowed as it was as it is not a universally held view. Good luck with editing Wikipedia. --WikiSlasher (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that to be an issue, and I may agree with the idea of removing that sentence. But why remove both sentences if you only have problem with the second one. The main concern with the idea of a "soul" is that its a religious concept, having everything to do with 1) transcendence (because it lives on after death) immortality (because it can (God willing) live forever) and God himself, who actually creates each soul (according to religious belief). I think its appropriate and in fact necessary to refer to those four concepts in the lede. Thanks- Zahd (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "It is often believed to live on after the person’s death" may address the transcendence issue, although transcendence itself might need to be mentioned. The only real problem is that the sentences were being stated as fact, when really they're beliefs. The idea of immortality and conception of creation by God can be in the lead as long as they're not stated like that. In a previous version of the article which somehow got lost along the way, some of these ideas are included and it might be a good idea to try and reincorporate some of that back into the lead. Cheers, --WikiSlasher (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good ideas. -Zahd (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your last edits didn't address the concerns. It replaced a fairly decent, broadly defined lead with a sentence specific (and sourced) to Catholicism. Per NPOV, we can't present that Catholic POV in the first sentence, if there are other notable POVs. Perhaps try adding on a sentence that states something along the lines of "Some religions posit that the soul is created by God." It would help if we could narrow down and be more specific on what religions hold that view. Saying "some religions" is weasely. -Andrew c [talk] 00:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why on earth are people edit warring? Why are people trying to force a controversial new edit without discussion?-Andrew c [talk] 18:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that edit warring is bad. I also agree with handling the God aspect more carefully is a good idea. -Zahd (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

alt med tag
(copied from alt med wikiproject page)

The Alternative medicine WikiProject tag was recently added to this article's talk page, but I don't see how it is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Any explanation? --WikiSlasher (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably should ask the editor, Sticky_Parkin who did the addition --Sultec (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Somebody had already put it in the category, I am just adding the banner and rating to articles in the categories according to how thorough their coverage of the alt med aspect or how much wikiproject alt med might want to input. Presumably the concept of soul someone felt to be important in alternative medicine as otherwise practitioners would have no problem with 'normal' medicine.:)  One of their beliefs is sometimes that the person has an essence and normal medicine doesn't address that.  The article doesn't much address the alt.med aspect at the moment but that doesn't mean that isn't possible or the concept isn't important in alt med with WP:RS on the subject discussing it.  Anyway, don't ask me lol I'm just adding the classes or banners in accordance with what other people had put in the category.:) Sticky Parkin 22:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead edit warring
Let's discuss issues with the lead. What specifically was wrong with the last lead? I'll discuss my concerns with the current lead. It states that all religions and all philosophies believe that the soul and the mind are the same. It also states that God made the soul, and then has some nonsense about "powerful enough to achieve sentience and transcendent enough to achieve immortality". None of this is even found in the cited source (if I am wrong, forgive me and please quote the cited source). On top of that, it seems highly POV to be using the Catholic Encyclopedia from 1912 to define a term used in many different cultures, religions, and philosophies. The previous lead was much more general and encompassed more POVs. I highly suggest we address issues with that version and work with it, as I don't see how the current first sentence is redeemable.-Andrew c [talk] 18:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with many subjects like this, along with Integrative (Complementary and Alternative) Medicine, the "paranormal" and "supernatural" (actually completely normal and perfectly natural)is that people who have not a clue about particular subjects insist that know it all, or at least enough, for it to be written their way, rather than leave it to people who do know. As a Chartered Engineer I am well versed in science and technology. As a Healer with a degree of higher sense perception, as Barbara Ann Brennan refers to it, i.e., I see, hear and feel beyond the physical when appropriate, I know quite a bit about non-physical matters as well as having considerable experience. Among those experiences, a few thousand hours over the last couple of decades, I have also had the privilege of seeing the core being, soul, of three people. No doubt that will result in the usual juvenile "woo", "quack", etc., reactions beloved of the self styled sceptics but their is nothing I can do to make them grow up. Unlike the majority of Wikipedia editors who pontificate while cowering behind pseudonyms with no declared qualifications or experience mine are out in the open. On the basis of that the first sentence of the article, as it stands at the time of writing, is rubbish and arrant nonsense that looks as if it has been written by a semi-literate infant. The Merriam Webster definition is lacking but beats the proverbial out of the current Wikipedia definition, though that takes little to achieve. RichardKingCEng (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "On the basis of that [...]". On the basis of what? All I see is "I have experience of [...], therefore my version is better". Ilkali (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The recent changes made the lead too specific to Catholicism, so I changed it back. I also made some small improvements to the flow by joining a pair of short sentences. Spotfixer (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: "On the basis of that [...]". On the basis of what? All I see is "I have experience of [...], therefore my version is better".

You have a ripe imagination as I did not write a version. I saw little point as I am well aware that Wikipedia is notionally POV but in practise is self-styled sceptic POV and it would soon have been changed. My understanding is on the basis of two decades of direct experience at a higher level, conversations and discussions with many people who are also sufficiently aware as well as others, at conferences and elsewhere, who are academically more qualified than I, including many who have researched in related, adjacent subject areas, many Members of Spirituality and Psychiatry Group of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, including being invited to one of the Group’s conferences. Other sources are numerous books. I am only an occasional visitor to Wikipedia but have long found it amusing that on contentious subjects in particular, many of the of editors of an Internet based encyclopaedia are, apparently, unable to carry out decent internet research, though, of course, such a search would also bring up information, opinions, etc., at variance with self-styled sceptic POV.

To come close to understanding from anything close to the mainstream science point of view it is necessary to go to at least the level of quantum mechanics but the David Bohm approach, or similar, while bearing in mind that, as David Bohm put it, it is not quantum mechanics at all but quantum non-mechanics. The soul is part of the structure which underlies the physical; strictly speaking the soul level underpins, gives rise to that substructure. As far as humans are concerned, the structures I sense (feel and see), along with my colleagues, is, essentially, as described in Barbara Ann Brennan’s books. Basic assumptions of classical physics are back to front. RichardKingCEng (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "You have a ripe imagination as I did not write a version". Your preferred version, then. Does it make a difference?
 * "My understanding is on the basis of two decades of [...]". Like I said, your argument reduces to "because I say so, and I'm an expert". You haven't addressed the criticisms made of your preferred version, and you haven't advanced any criticisms of the original version. Your own beliefs, however well-informed you think they are, carry little weight here. Ilkali (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not an expert; the self-styled sceptics are the experts. Expert: “x” is the unknown quantity; a spurt is a drip under pressure. I am more of a specialist, or, at least the non-physical is one of my specialities. Although it does not sit well with mainstream science, as it is usually propounded, the order is spirit, consciousness, mind, material world; the latter being the lower order of things. I am well aware that knowledge of such matters carries no weight here, strictly speaking little weight. As I said, it is the limited knowledge self-styled sceptic point of view, pushed, almost exclusively, by people afraid to declare who they are that predominates. That is why I did not bother to corset the actual page. So, I did not provide a preferred version to criticise. Anyway, I do not think my “beliefs” are well informed, I know I am well informed, as are many people like me. RichardKingCEng (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion is pointless until you gain at least a basic understanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Ilkali (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I know how Wikipedia works; self-styled sceptic POV, classical mechanics, mainstream science, with a liberal sprinkling of ignorance rules, edited by anonymous people, several of whom have access to knowledge and experience that is inversely proportional to that which they suppose they have. I advise students to avoid Wikipedia like the plague, except for careful use in relation to non-contentious subjects and would mark them down for quoting Wikipedia. Anyway, I simply made a point; it was you who opened a discussion, though it seemed to be about something I had not actually written. Fascinating, well, interesting, at least. I not that you do not even attempt to give justification, in terms of qualification, experience, or who you are, for any comments you make. 23:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardKingCEng (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, I'm not appealing to my own authority. Ilkali (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Nor am I appealing to my own authority and while you are an anonymous person, with no declared knowledge, experience, or qualifications, (unlike mine, which are verifiable) you have no authority anyway, nor do you carry any particular weight. RichardKingCEng (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Inanimate/Animate
This article shows eurocentrism.

EX.

Should this article include the following line?

"In some cultures, non-human living things, and sometimes inanimate objects are said to have souls, a belief known as animism."

In saying "non-human living things, and sometimes inanimate objects are said to have souls", the article seems to have been written from the point of view of someone who is not a believer in the concept of animism, and clearly belongs to the school of thought that dictates a separation of "human" and "animal". This is offensive to many, if not all, believers of Dharmic religions. Stating that objects said to have souls in the animist school of thought are inanimate may be offensive to others as well.

This article needs to be rewritten. Pisharov (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV on Scientific Section
I feel that the Scientific/Research section should be reworded/written. It presently reads as though all scientists except for rare opponents believe that the mind and the soul are the same. Clearly this is not the case. 208.103.224.55 (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I'm going to go ahead and make a change 208.103.224.55 (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Souls and gender/sexuality

 * for example; it is quite difficult topic, but something should be said.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.206.1 (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Images
This article is almost image free and interestingly the Wikicommons category Soul currently redirects to the city in Korea! I think this needs to change, and I will do so after some other suggestions are provided here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Jewish souls vs. Gentiles souls
There is a controversy within Judaism on the distinction that is sometimes made among Rabbis between Jewish souls and Gentile souls. Accordingly, Jewish souls have special religious privileges, while Gentile souls are held to be under-privileged. This purely formal distinction has led to anti-semitic accusations that alleged that Jews are deliberately discriminating against Gentiles. ADM (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hume & Kant
David Hume's Essay "On the Immortality of the Soul" as well as Immanuel Kant's concept of the soul should be mentioned in the philosophy-section of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.115.121 (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The idea of the soul is a theory, not a fact, and the first sentence should reflect that
i recently added "believed to be" to the first sentence of this article, since this is an idea, not a demonstrated fact. I was surprised to find it deleted the next day. The concept of a soul is a "believe" not a "fact", so it is incorrect to say "it is", and should be say "is believed to be". The undo comment was something like "that is convered in 'in many religions'". That is not actually the issue. My point was that it should be pointed out this is a BELIEF not a FACT, irrespective of what group or groups hold this belief.

Undoing those kind of edits that are correcting factual technical clarrifiations, are a very bad idea. I think the wikipedia gods should consider changing this back to "is believed to be..." right in the first paragraph. This makes it much more clear. It sounds like wikipedia is endorsing the acceptance of the existence of the soul. if they are... i would have a huge problem with that. please consider making the change. Cheers!


 * Hi. I think you may misunderstand the context of the first sentence. No one on Wikipedia is trying to endorse the existence of the soul. The article's first sentence says, "In many religions and parts of philosophy, the soul is the spiritual or immaterial part of a living being, often regarded as eternal." Notice that the sentence already provides context by saying, "In many religions and parts of philosophy...". In other words, the article is saying that certain religions and philosophical systems include the soul. It is not saying that the soul exists outside of those belief systems.


 * It would be awkward and impossible to add "is believed to be" to every single sentence describing a supernatural entity. Instead, Wikipedia often just describes such entities (for example, as "the spiritual or immaterial part of a living being"), mentions that they appear in certain religions, and trust that the reader is intelligent enough to realize that such beings may not actually exist.


 * Anyway, I was not the person who reverted your edit, but that's my guess at why it was reverted. Best, Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ricco sez; I don't think that you would add it to every single sentence. I think you would just make it clear in the "first" sentence of a articles or topics, like in this case changing the first sentence of this article to "In many religions and parts of philosophy, the soul is believed to be the spiritual or immaterial part of a living being, often regarded as eternal." I know that supernaturalists spend a lot of time, and money, promoting supernaturalism, and editing texts through out the world to promote supernaturalism as a reality, not as a belief or hypothesis. It seems to me if wikipedia hopes to avoid being a place where supernaturalism is promoted, it should be careful. And especially not immediately delete additional factual data added to articles to make them more accurate and clear with respect to reality. I still hope that wikipedia gods will give this further consideration and change the first sentence to; "In many religions and parts of philosophy, the soul is believed to be the spiritual or immaterial part of a living being, often regarded as eternal." I an new to actually participating on wikipedia. I love the idea of adam smith's invisible hand creating articles. Look forward to understanding how changes are made, and disputes resolved.

I would prefer not to edit the article again, since that seems like it would facilitate an edit/unedit/edit/unedit war, and being a brand new spanking person to actually participating in wikipedia edits, it is best to proceed slowly. But if could someone perhaps change to first sentence to; "In many religions and parts of philosophy, the soul is believed to be the spiritual or immaterial part of a living being, often regarded as eternal." that would indicate support for the idea. And then if others want that taken out, that would indicate that those three words are VERY important to the topic, and perhaps the concept should be reexamined at greater depth.

I think I have explained my desire to indicate that the 'soul' is a theory not a reality, and now have outlined why I find it is useful to have this known by the reader clearly. It is adding three or so words. If this cannot be done, it seems to indicate a very conservative or rigid method of keeping folks that are actually trying to improve the clarity of an article from doing so. Cheers! Ricco Webulite (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I for one have no problem with the change that you propose. I would make the change myself in order to avoid making a huge dispute over such a reasonable change. But, like you, I don't want to get into an edit war with others. Let's wait to see if anyone else responds to your concerns. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The edits you're talking about just go against your stated intentions. The phrase In many religions and parts of philosophy already situates the soul in the realm of the hypothetical. There's no need for the is believed to be, so its presence has the effect of implying that we are talking about ascribing properties to something whose existence is presupposed. In these religions it is believed to be X, so where is it believed to be Y? It's not just redundant, it's plain wrong. Religious canon doesn't describe the soul, it defines it.
 * I think there's some room for improvement, though. How would you feel about "In [...], the soul is a spiritual or immaterial part of a living being, often regarded as eternal"? The indefinite article carries less implication of realness, to me. Ilkali (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

James Hillman - why in the article?
An American psychologist hardly rates a section with this article. Why don't we have other more prominent philosophers instead, or just limt to main ones? --Fremte (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that the word "psychology" literally means "study of the psyche/soul", while philosophy means "love of wisdom", I do not see how "philosophical" treatments of the soul should be favoured by default over "psychological" treatments. Hillman, who is in fact more of a philosopher than are most other psychologists these days, is prominently regarded as a leading figure in the psychology of the soul--which is to say, in psychology-as-psychology. If additional views might suit the article well, they may be added by any editor who would like to add them, and their current absence is no fault of Hillman's. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Another reason why I've featured Hillman so prominently in the article is that he helps to define soul (as distinct from spirit and as sort-of-distinct from psyche) in the first place. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, Hillman's significance, along with the etymological meaning of "psychology", had not been clarified in the article. I hope to have remedied that problem here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Image
There needs to be a better image than the one currently in use. What we have right now is a darkish photo of a burning candle. Anyone want to look around for a better image? DQweny (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitions
This discussion seems headed for disaster unless terms are defined. The two distinct axioms, associated with a living form,regardless whether either is real, are:-

1. The ego, psyche, or personality. 2. The Self, essence, or reality.

The ego, considered as the part which is enacted on the stage of 'life', may be compared to the character assumed by an actor; it is not manifested before birth or after death of the body, and so is unreal in the sense that it is impermanent. The 'Self' may be considered as the actor who plays a part, or more than one part. It is purely subjective, and its role is not manifest. An argument in favour of its existence is how, without it, chemical forms made of more-or-less inert matter (such as human bodies) are able to move, or what impels them to act. It is obviously also distinct from the MIND, since something is able to use, control, and change, the mind. The mind appears to be no more than a mass of thoughts, just as the essence of a computer is the non-tangible bundle of electronic impulses which pass through it. The notion enshrined in various religions that the "Soul" (in the sense of essence) is immortal, is in conflict with that of its being created at conception; immortality requires eternal existence without creation, beginning, or end. A further fallacy is that of considering the "Soul" or Essence as denumerable, or in relation to bodies- it is ridiculous to speak of a 'person' 'having' a Soul rather than the Soul having bodies. In the way one might ask whether every drop of water in a lake has a lake to itself. If the invisible boundaries are ignored, every drop IS the lake.The individualisation (into drops or bodies) is purely artificial.222.153.68.33 (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is very interesting and thought provoking; I think I can sense some connection to Jung, especially toward the end, but I can't say I've heard this entire line of thought before. What is the source of these positions? Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I is the soul
Can I prove to myself that i exist? Soul has never been a material being either in Hindu Atman an jivatman concept or in Greek concept of essence of a thing. it is the apriori knowledge of self. 'I know i exist'. I do not need to prove it i just need to believe it. Since it is apriori knowlege it is outsie the domain of science which concerns itself with aposteriori Knowledge. Soul does not exist in the physical sense of a tree or a rock. It exists in the sense of your anger, happiness. Can science disprove that anger does not exist because one cannot see anger or prove it empirically? It is the same concept applied here. None of the Greek philosophers or eastern religions call soul a material a thing to be felt with senses. Soul is experiencer of the experience of senses. Thus when humans experience through five senses the feeler of the experience is the soul or I. With respect to inanminate things one can apply words like 'essence'. Is laptop its screen, or chip or hard drive? When laptop is not any of its individual parts but the essence (whole) of all individual parts, so is soul. Soul is the essence of all of human body and not its skin, or liver or hair. As usual essence cannot be seen or experienced but it can only be known.It is like how do 'i' know 'i' exist? i cannot feel 'i' because i am 'i' To experience something the experiencer must be different from thing being experienced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.79.154 (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Much of this is in the article: Soul -  Steve3849  01:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Human soul.
Humans observe, interact with and are made of three media. They are the material and immaterial space times and the space time of matter. Human soul exists in only the immaterial space time but it uses matter and the material space time as 'symbols' with which to observe the material world. Observations are possible because the material space time and matter in it interact with each other and they all have reflection in the immaterisl medium. Contact between the material and the immaterial worlds is possible because every graviton of the material space, located on the boundary with the immaterial space, rotates. Since gravitons of the immaterial space are within the material gravtons the rotation is transmitted and it is the same in both of them. Velocity of rotation, within the material space time, varies from maximum at the centre of observation to minimum at the boundary of space. The slowest rotation at the boundary manifests itself, for example, as the large cycle of existence of galsxies or atoms. In the immaterial world it is manifested as the 'invariability' of our memory. Velocity of the flow of time depends on the magnitude of the observers static unit 'now' which measures the velocity. The unit 'now' is created by the static limit which is the Nothingness of the observers 'I'. Magnitude of 'now' depends on the location of the observer on the spectrum of magnitudes of the unit 'now'. In each space time the observer is static when located in the centre of that space time so that his unit of measurement of velocity of the flow of time is constant. Observation is the duality of the observer and of that which is being observed. To observe is to be conscious of existence of 'something' which is not the observers 'self'. The observed 'something' is inside the unit 'now' and it can be either static in one 'now' or it can be dynamic in which case there is a difference in the content of two 'now', both of them located in the current 'now'. The two 'now' within the current 'now' can be separated by any plurality of the units 'now'. This can be observed as the interval of time between two observations. That which is being observed in the 'now' is not the masterial symbol. What is observed is the reflection of that symbol within the immaterial space time. At the boundary, between the material and the immaterial space times, the two units 'now', one on either side of the boundary, approach identity. When the observation is made from the centre of the material space time, the difference between the 'now' of the material world and that of the immaterial world is largest and it is the difference between the two ends of the spectrum of variation of magnitudes of the unit 'now' When human soul has a material body for a symbol and it interacts with the material medium and with the content of the immaterial space time, it uses the static unit 'now' applicable to the centre of the material space time. Human soul, as the conscious observer, is the 'self' which is the duality of the static limit of Nothingness of the 'I' and a stastic unit 'now'. Without a material symbol observations by the soul are limited to only the memory contained in the immaterial space time. On separating from the body the soul changes quantitatively the unit 'now', applicable in the material space time for the unit 'now' applicable in the immaterial space time. Without a body with senses, acting as a symbol, there is no contact between the soul and the material world. KK (92.29.56.21 (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

Semi-random, sort-of-preemptive observation
In over two years of active editing, I don't think I've seen a talk page quite as interesting as this one--and I've seen some pretty interesting talk pages. But, in case anyone is tempted to remove all the personal... meditations(?), I would suggest in advance that we should WP:IAR and leave them all in place. Of course, if it gets out of hand, then we should IAR the IAR and draw the line somewhere. But as long as these reflections come at a slow and steady pace, they actually seem (IMO) to be of potential benefit for the article. Soul is unique in that one of its key properties (as indicated in the article's lead) is the difficulty with which it is defined. Although some of the talk page entries may comprise original research, the research they contain may help editors to navigate through conceptions of the soul, some of which may be verifiable and (along with their sources) might even be brought to recollection by the manner in which they're framed here. Because soul can be such a definitional and conceptual jungle (read Hillman if you don't believe me), I'd think that (within reason) any maps provided--however idiosyncratically they're drawn in areas--hold the potential to lead us to some editorial clearings in which the definition and nature of soul become at least a little more (and more verifiably) transparent. So, all in all: Good work, folks. Even though WP is not meant to be a repository for original ideas, this particular talk page might be an appropriate place to guide editors in original ways to enduring truths (or, if not to the WP:TRUTH, at least to some verifiable candidates for the title). Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Do Jews have souls?
I was having a fun time reading this article when I came to the end and realized that there is no section for Judaism. Does Judaism teach anything about Souls? Do they just not have them in their belief? I know us Jews are only a small portion of the world's population, but I think it to be important enough to get a mention here. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely souls are in the eye of the beholder. What you are does not decide whether or not you have a soul; what you believe determines whether or not you think everyone has a soul.Abtract (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, does Judaism teach that souls exists?Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You could try asking at the reference desk, they're good with that type of question. Franamax (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it!!! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.71.112 (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Humans = souls?
"Many philosophical and spiritual systems teach that humans are souls". What does that mean? Such systems certainly have taught that humans have souls, but who says that humans in their entirety are souls? Sure, "soul" can be synonymous with "human" (e.g., "lost soul", "kind soul"), but such an equation is a figure of speech (called synecdoche) and not (to my knowledge, anyway) an actual tenet of any prominent philosophical or spiritual tradition. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, "are" reads too much like an equals sign. I suspect the intended meaning is "human organisms are the physical embodiments of metaphysical individuals".  Just to confuse matters though, here's an example tenet - it hovers between exactitude and ambiguity so similarly that I've no idea whether it supports my interpretation or not.
 * "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7 KJV). K2709 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anybody know what that line looks like in Hebrew? In Hebrew, as far as I'm aware, the same word can be translated as both "breath" and "soul". So, if the same word does in fact appear twice in the Hebrew line, then the decision to translate it first as "breath" and second as "soul" could have been an attempt to avoid redundancy. In any case, the point of the line does not appear to be that man and soul are completely equivalent. It says that man is formed of dust (body) and filled with breath (soul). Wouldn't a "living soul", then, be an embodied soul? The main ideas would seem to be that A) God created man, and B) men's (living) bodies have souls. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "וּמֵעֵ֗ץ הַדַּ֙עַת֙ טֹ֣וב וָרָ֔ע לֹ֥א תֹאכַ֖ל מִמֶּ֑נּוּ כִּ֗י בְּיֹ֛ום אֲכָלְךָ֥ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ מֹ֥ות תָּמֽוּת" - I do indeed see "מִמֶּ֖נּוּ" twice, though lacking any Hebrew scholarship whatsoever I've no idea whether they mean "breath" and "soul", "breathed" and "breath", "man" and "man" or none of the above... K2709 (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Soul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120313160542/http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MAG/45144_2.htm to http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MAG/45144_2.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120313160549/http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/an162621.htm to http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/an162621.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130921112719/http://www.all-famous-quotes.com:80/Virchand_Gandhi_quotes.html to http://www.all-famous-quotes.com/Virchand_Gandhi_quotes.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110928230010/http://www.memeoid.net/books/Spenard/Dueling_with_Dualism-Spenard.pdf to http://www.memeoid.net/books/Spenard/Dueling_with_Dualism-Spenard.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Soul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111009012544/http://www.bskk.com/viewthread.php?tid=96608 to http://www.bskk.com/viewthread.php?tid=96608
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141105165031/http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/12/28%20neuroscience%20snead/1228_neuroscience_snead.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/12/28%20neuroscience%20snead/1228_neuroscience_snead.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Quantum Physcis Mutual Entanglement Permeation Soul
JOHN ARCHIBAL WHEELER, ROGER PENROSE, DAVID CHALMERS SOUL QUANTUM

There should be more detailed reference to John Archibald Wheeler's, Roger Penrose's, and David Chalmer's approaches of quantum spirit, in the "it from bit" concept vein. (LoneRubberDragon)

QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT

From quantum physics, there is a concept of entanglement that says, for all measurements (interactions), there is a portion of projective measurement reduction on each particle, as well as shared entanglement residue in both particle measurements. The reductionist measurement aspect is independent for each particle. The entanglement measurement aspect is mutually dependent on particles such that measuring one particle affects the other particle instantaneously, or infinitely faster than light. (LoneRubberDragon)

MUTUAL ENTANGLEMENT PERMEATION IN BODY

In the human body, there is a mass cobweb of mutual wavefunction entanglements that permeates the body, producing an entanglement system functionality throughout the body. And while behavior and sense are based on the purely material network of matter and neural systems, that all remain point reductionist independent due to body temperature inter-particle measurements, we also see that there is a holistic system in that cobweb of permeating mutual entanglements that lies parallel or supervenient to the reductionist point matter. (LoneRubberDragon)

OBSERVE SPATIAL AND SIMULTANEOUS AND POLARIZED MEASUREMENTS

What does this produce, observeably? For human vision, it produces a simultaneous and spatial field of vision, with light and color that is simultaneously or holistically sensed. This is quite different from a piece of passive receptive film in a double slit interference experiment that records independent spots for photons. Even a digital camera would only sense photons on independent pixel detectors. But, to reiterate, the human eye-brain system senses the world in a spatial and simultaneous holistic field. Why is it simultaneous? That part is easy, because entanglement alterations operates infinitely faster than light, and a cobweb of mutual entangled particle characteristics through the body and mind-matter, when measured here or there by sense data, affects the entire cobweb in some way all at once, instantaneously. Why is it spatial and colored, for human vision, for example? That is more difficult. Likely, in the point reductionist material properties of the mind substrate, the waves of electrochemical sense pulses produce coherencies in the mutually entangled particles through the body, producing polarizations and distributions on the entanglements causing human vision to appear spatial and colored, in the example qualia of human vision. However, the not communication / no communication theorem poses problems as to why anything coherent is observed at all, holistically, in human vision because it says no coherent information is conveyed between two entangled particle wavefunctions, that is unless the same large statistical numbers of coherently entangled particle wavefunction properties also produces the sense of color and space and lightness of the human vision example, despite the point quantum not communication theorem, with coherent information sent by the numbers of entangled particles. Without instantaneous quantum entanglement effects, it is absolutely puzzling how to explain the "colour", simultenaity, and spatiality of senses like sight and sound and touch, much less taste, scent, thoughts, and emotion. For what mechanism related to measurement and spatiality and instantaneousness is there to explain that, except Quantum Entanglement with some form of Coherent Information Conveyed infinitely faster than light in an entire body system. Reductionist matter theory cannot convey a system spense, because each point of matter is considered independent, and then what is there to observe the WHOLE of that, if a Homunculus does not exist in some form throughout the body? Only Holist System Theories can do this. Lastly, this definition of soul based on mutual quantum entanglement permeating the body is not a material definition of a soul, but an immaterial quantum probability state of matter entanglement, as Hindu and other non material theories of soul propose. As such, the soul, this way, is immaterial, and yet dependent on a material substrate to exist, for without any matter, there is nothing for a soul to exist upon, because quantum enatanglement systems require matter to have the property of entanglement. And this definition of soul is massless, as it is made of entanglement state information of a system of measurement, assuming that information contains no mass, or virtually zero mass, in a taylor series incomplete definition of mass based on configuration entropy and entanglement configuration entropy. Thus, making soul immaterial, instantaneous outside of space and time, (practically) massless, and holistic as a system, forming the sense of space and colour and simultenaity of measurement, as quantum physics is built on measurement and its residue of mutual particle quantum entanglement. (LoneRubberDragon)

MIND SOUL DUALITY REGARDING STATE AS ELECTROMAGNETISM VERSUS ELECTRON-PROTON DUALITY NATURE IN CATEGORY

With regards to Descartes versus Swinburne, we have an interesting situation. If one argues there is a categorical error, in calling the material mind base a separate medium from the sensed perception of one's soul, we run into issues. For if one says that material mind and perception soul are one substance, then electrons-protons and the electromagnetic field are one substance in category, also. BUT ... if electrons-protons and electromagnetism are considered two different categories of matter state, then point reductionist independent mind-matter and the holistic cobweb system of mutual particle entanglement systemic perception soul are two different states of matter. One substance being the substrate of reductionist state of point matter in the body-mind materials, and the other substance being the mutual states of residual entanglements that permeates the quantum quality of the whole holistic body. In this case, soul is reliant upon matter to exist, to support quantum entanglement, but the mutual quantum entanglement remains a holistic sense of quantum state on systemic particles quantum state that is "one with everything" or "one with each other mutually", which is separate from the independent reductionist quantum state that is the particle probability of each particle as an independent reductionist unit. (LoneRubberDragon) 75.82.144.206 (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_measurement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_from_bit#Wheeler.27s_.22it_from_bit.22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_penrose

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holarchy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_(philosophy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_in_the_Machine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_R._Hofstadter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach


 * I will try to answer the person who asked the question. How do we know souls exist? Answer: given that you believe in the Bible it says in John 20:22 that Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit onto his disciples. meaning that God has breathed our eternal souls onto us. The Soul is described as Gods breath in the Bible. Given that you believe in God and that the New Testament grants all people living after the death of Jesus eternal life based on the Judgement the Holy Spirit is in fact your soul. We know souls exist because God the Father states that they do in the Book of Genesis described as Gods breath and Jesus also states that they do. You have to believe and belief comes from the understanding of the Bible which is Gods Word. Hope is what we do have and it is what all of us can truly believe in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godar75 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not anywhere, did I even *mention* that Jesus person, so you are off topic, in your intentions, whether good or bad, to answer what *I* wrote, so it seems those Christian people obviously do not know how to follow a topic, now, do they? But anyway, Ok, HOW did this Jesus person force an additional layer of "spirit" into a human body that already contained a Quantum Physics Mutual Entanglement human spirit?  Could not that Jesus fellow have transmitted drugs to his disciples, through his breath?  A drug is hardly something to worship as God, and is only a deception, to call it God, in a human that already contains a sober spirit by quantum physics.  That Jesus fellow could have been on drugs, and fooled the apostles, they being in his Hole Spirit addiction.  Can you, in physics, explain your claims, and the systems physics protocol involved with that spirit mechanism, assuming your Jesus fellow is not ruled by a physics mystery and chaos, without rules or logic or laws, with Jesus being ultimately lawless to reasonable physics, or is even merely a secret drug trafficker?  An intrieging concept, though, to worship the first major drug trafficker as God!  I'm sure a drug trafficking Jesus person, really kept the money flowing in to them, and spread quite rapidly, building churches burning incense for the "followers" so doped up that 98% couldn't read in those drugged up dark ages.  And, if he did drugs, like that, that would also explain the ressurection, as a drug induced revival.  Plus, the drugs would be capable of creating apostles that followed him, even after death, to their own martyrdoms.  I heard from the 1970's that suspects on PCP and such, could give them superhuman strength and not any sense of pain, which is what the martyrs suffered, following that Jesus person.  Don't get me wrong, I like the occasional drink, and smoke, but I do not call it God, but rather a neural network modifier, and quantum system sense affector.  76.167.43.88 (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * AND, Did you even read and half understand what was first posted in discussion, here, on quantum physics mutual entanglement systems? And how can we know what you claim is true of any form of Hole Spirit with this Jesus person, for just the physics of measuring a quantum physics mutual entanglement system function for a human, is so subtle, that it cannot be readily measured externally.  In fact, physics, so far, has completely failed to prove merely the human spirit, and reaches towards the complete disproof of merely the human spirit (sans / without ANY God).  Science cannot even prove soft tissue damage in hospitals, prone to the illegal deception of medical science itself, unable to detect something much more measurable than human spirit.  Similarly, science cannot prove drugs have *perceptual* effects, because none of those things can be proven, except through testimonies, and so must be taken on ... Faith, just like soft tissue damage.  And how do you even know, given the potential that this Jesus fellow was merely a drug trafficking person, that there isn't Really an Allah monolith type rock processor, that endows humans with that Holy Spirit through even more magical methods than *drugs*, to transmit a holistic sense to humans at a great distance from Mecca.  And how do you know that that Jesus fellow is not a mere fakir of a drug based ressurection, or that there was not even a *double* of Jesus, who appeared later on, playing a "healed" Jesus, just like Saddam Hussein had multiple Hussein dopplegangers running around, fooling everyone in Iraq?  Stalin and Hitler even used doubles, to play them, and fooled everyone.  Even your Bible's God, uses Satan, in II Thessalonians 2, disguised as that Jesus fellow, and that God intentionally permits to be sent to those that God blinds, to damn those who believe the lie, that God Intelligently Designed and permits on the world, using God's Master Planned imposter of Jesus, in that transformed Satan, producing humans running around saying "Jesus is here, or Jesus is there, but to believe them not", from that same Jesus fellow's own words in that Gospel.  Some God, you propose, over physics, of a lawless intentional deception planning and damning God, and a potential drug trafficker, in that Hole Spirit.  For to select only this Jesus fellow, is to Eternally Know that Mohammed and Allah are Certifyable Infidels, as well as that Buddha fellow, or the Hindu trinity Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu.  So, What?  You can pick a verse in physics, or The Bible, or The Koran, or Buddhist Tripitakas, and in that "Hope" you can pick your own reality of ultimate God and definition of spirit, from the Hindu smorgasborg of available Gods, because Hope is God, and God is Hope, as you somewhat imply ... "Hope is what we do have and it is what all of us can truly believe in", that you wrote?  In short, your response was too far a ramblingly incoherent Biblical Research response, with a superficiality, that I hope you might be able to return to help flesh out more fully, and in a more physics based systems response from that Bible book with all knowledge, as I can not understand a thing that you have written in your response ... and I can read several computer code languages, several human languages from Mandarin to Japanese to Hebrew and Greek, and system's engineering theory.  76.167.43.88 (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems
Content in the Islamic section of this article placed in 2009, here, duplicates at least in part material previously published in this 1983 book. This content was placed by a person whose contributions have proven to be copyright problems in multiple articles. While the material has changed somewhat, what remains is a derivative work. Unless we are able to verify that this material is public domain or otherwise compatibly licensed, it's going to to need to be rewritten or removed, I'm afraid. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Page move
Does anyone mind if I move this to something like Soul (spirit), and make the disambiguation page the main one? SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll go ahead with that. If someone objects, we can always undo it. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, any reason this wasn't brought to WP:RM? -- Ja Ga  talk 17:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as WP:RM says, "There is no obligation to list such move requests here; this page may be seen as a place to advertise move debates that would benefit from wider community input, or for users to request assistance from administrators in moving pages." There's no need to list it if it isn't controversial. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, but I do think it's controversial, and would benefit from wider discussion. Would you object if I undid the moves so you could start a discussion at RM? -- Ja Ga  talk 18:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * New here, but I agree that it would benefit from further discussion. hgilbert (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Slim said above, "If someone objects, we can always undo it." WP:RM also mentions the possibility of undoing the move for discussion. So that seems a perfectly reasonable approach. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the open minded discussion. -- Ja Ga  talk 15:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Holy s*
"Through a connection to the Soul the mind apprehends abstractions implicit in spirit whether that be of transcendent derivation or temporal analysis."

Whoever thought up this monstrosity has no soul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.231.146.82 (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Buddhism section needs a correction
The soul is a lazy explanation of the universe most amazing creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.230.237.248 (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence in the Buddhism section is clearly non-factual:

"Others point to research done at the University of Virginia as proving that at least some people are reborn."

It's referenced but following the reference leads one to page 13 of a Book that says only "In his recent book, "Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect", he [Ian Stevenson] summarizes thirty years of research into alleged accounts of children accurately recalling specific people and events in their past lives". Nothing is even remotely proven by this, certainly not the idea that souls or people are being reborn! The rest of page 13 says that with very few exceptions (Stevenson being the only one named), the larger scientific community "refute any kind of dualism on the ground that there is no evidence for the existence of any kind of subjective mental phenomenon apart from the functions and properties of the brain".

It might be more accurate to keep the reference and change the sentence to say something like:

"At least one researcher at the University of Virginia continues to search for evidence for a non-materialistic origin to the psyche." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steevithak (talk • contribs) 03:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Selling one's soul to the Devil
Odd there is no reference here to the belief that one could sell one's soul to the Devil -- or, to put it another way, the Devil is willing to offer goods or services to obtain a person's soul. Examples of this include the tale of Faust, legends concerning Robert Johnson, the American short story "The Devil and Daniel Webster" -- as well as the porn flick "The Devil in Miss Jones". I'm not clear on what happens to someone who sells her/his soul to the Devil -- beyond the obvious result that they spend eternity in Hell -- nor just how "Christian" this belief is. It's amazing what gaps in coverage Wikipedia's approach to writing articles creates. -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of devotee-published sources
I have removed the reference to Kalchuri, Meher Prabhu. For discussion, see RS/N and this Talk page. Simon Kidd (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the RSN page you link to that gives you the right to remove referenced text. You are removing valid information from articles acting against consensus. Hoverfish Talk 20:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I linked to two pages. Fifelfoo said on his Talk page: "I'd suggest editing out OR and inappropriately sourced content, citing policy and appropriate discussions, and discussing at length on the talk page." The relevant policy/guideline says that an article "must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if [among other things, it] is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials". Kalchuri fails this test, since he is published by an organisation affiliated with the subject. Simon Kidd (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't unilaterally decide that Lord Meher is not a reliable source. You can't unilaterally decide that it is devotional and not a reliable biography. What is "Devotional"? and who decides. Not You, Mr Kidd. Hoverfish Talk 16:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The Invention of God
I put the following paragraph in the Science section and it was removed. I'd like to know why. There is no mention here.

Bill Lauritzen, in his book, The Invention of God: The Natural Origins of Mythology and Religion [82], states that the concept of the "soul" was "an attempt by early humans to understand what we now call oxygen..." By looking at the world as early humans did, Lauritzen noted that these early humans would have observed such things as: people die when they can't breathe, blood evaporates into the air, and completely burned (or cremated) bodies are reduced to nothing but ashes. To account for these seemingly magical facts early humans deduced that the body is made of something largely immaterial, which they called the soul or spirit, and which enters the body through the breath and leaves it upon decomposition or cremation. Lauritzen notes that the early humans were right to an extent, in that the body is composed of about 65% oxygen and 9% hydrogen. Lauritzen also made a video that introduces the soul-oxygen idea.[83] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill360360 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See Identifying reliable sources and Due and undue weight. We really should not have a paragraph about what someone says in a self published book, certainly not without any third party sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this. I think the author, Bill Lauritzen, can be considered a reliable source. See his web page at www.earth360.com. Also, the book jacket includes praise from a famous CalTech Scientist: Mamikon Mnatsakanian, PhD, a famous psychologist: Elizabeth Loftus, PhD, Psychology, U C Irvine, and a famous author, Sir Arthur C. Clarke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill360360 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, book jacket blurbs do not turn a self published book to a reliable source, nor does the fact that the author has a website. - MrOllie (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly concur with MrOllie. hgilbert (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign this comment. The book jacket blurbs from the referenced book are from very reliable scientists. And www.earth360.com is a long-standing, highly ranked web site, with many serious articles, commented on throughout the web, by many reliable scholars. Thus, that is a different situation that someone's neighbor writing a book jacket blurb, or someone pasting up a web site overnight. Also to quote Wikipedia: "The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.). All three can affect reliability." The fact that this author, Bill Lauritzen, is an independent scholar and has chosen to publish his articles and book independently, is only one of three things to consider. The other things to consider are the work itself (the actual content), and the author (Bill Lauritzen). It should also be remembered that Walt Whitman, Poe, Twain, Ben Franklin, James Joyce and others published independently. Bill360360 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill360360 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you're giving a source and verifying its credibility using the same source. Furthermore, I do not believe it is a realiable source.


 * A search for "Bill Lauritzen" using scholar.google.com yeilds only two articles, neither of which is able to be viewed:


 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=bill+lauritzen


 * And the portion of the about section of his website which includes pictures of his alleged academic accolades consists mostly of degrees from a place called "The United States Air Force Academy".
 * Its website is here: http://www.af.mil/.
 * As for the crediblity of this institution, heretofore referred to as USAF, it is called into question by citations 5-9 on
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_Academy#cite_note-5.
 * (Citation 5 has been removed by The Washington Post. Someone should notify them, or tell me how to do it)
 * As for the credibility of Bill Lauritzen and his website, on the about page there are only two photographs of awards that weren't issued by USAF:
 * http://www.earth360.com/author-harvardbook.jpg
 * http://www.earth360.com/author-purdue_small.gif
 * Both of these photographs are of a low resolution, which should make one question their legitimacy. A simple google search for bill lauritzen harvard book award, again yields little.
 * Your username also makes me question your motives.
 * Gyou (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

PET scan
The PET scan image appears to have no obvious connection to the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi IRWolfie. In a certain way the soul is thought to be connected to the mind, so I thought a picture of a brainscan might fit. AFAIK, we don't have a picture of the soul anywhere, but we do have an image of the brain's processes as they appear differentiated by color. I thought it would be an interesting way of representing the soul, and promote further thought on the subject. I could be wrong, though, and Im more than willing to entertain other options as far as images go. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I had a quick google through commons; how about Taula_soriguerola-detall.jpg or H%C3%B4tel_Dieu_Altarbild.jpg? They are images of the archangel Michael weighing souls. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I am removing the POV image with its suggestive caption from the lead and please do not restore it. The soul is not the mind and the mind is not the brain, so all this creates a completely wrong impression and therefore should not be in the lead. "The soul is thought to be connected to the mind" or the "scientific works, in particular, often consider 'soul' as a synonym for 'mind'" would need at least a citation and even so is a marginal issue. The "soul" is not the object of study of "science" but of metaphysics or philosophy.

What I see in the images you suggest here is an archangel weighting persons. I am aware that it is supposed to be symbolic, but I do not think it is a good idea to place an image of something visible to depict the "soul" in the lead. Place it further down as popular or religious symbolism if necessary. It would be like placing the image of a solid object in the lead of "metaphysics" with a caption stating that for some people this object represents the fundamental nature of being. Hoverfish Talk 11:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is "mind" the object of study of science? More to the point, if the soul was the object of scientific study, would scientific views outweigh those of religion? Hoverfish wrote: . This is true, in fact they have different names, and this is largely because they are different things. But the real question isn't if they are the same thing, because we know they arent, the real question is whether soul, mind, brain are related somehow. Aren't they related? -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the issue I raised was only about the image in the lead. From your comment I see that the science/religion issue is involved and this is one more reason that the image should not be in the lead but rather near the part where the issue is brought up. About the questions you raise, first I don't think that religion and science have any reason to "outweigh" each other, as they deal with different issues and have different methods and aims. I do see an contemporary issue between scientists and priesthood and who should be more important in people's considerations and there is a lot of confusing talk about all this. So this is one more reason why we should be careful to state things neutrally and carefully differentiate "apples from oranges", so to say. We define science as "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." Now, whereas the brain and the nervous system are "things" that belong to the universe and can be studied by science, mind and soul are concepts (not "things") and as such they cannot be studied by science. Experiments to locate or measure the soul or the mind belong to pseudoscience IMO. But this does not mean that the concept of soul is not related to the concept of mind or that the brain has nothing to do with the mental abilities of biological beings. There are several metaphysical views about their relation and each depends on how exactly it defines each of these. I think that as Wikipedians we should not suggest what this relation "is", but rather try to place each issue in its proper place, state all existing views and definitions, and how each sees them interrelated. We should be careful to differentiate between fields of knowledge and between academic and popular views. I hope this answers your points to some degree, or at least makes clear my position on the issue. Hoverfish Talk 10:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * - They sometimes deal with the same issues, don't they? But you are correct in that the soul is something that largely belongs to the domain of religion and theology. I see we are in general agreement about how to proceed, to deal with the relation between what is generally scientific in domain, and what is theological in domain. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)