Active discussions

The Problem of Induction - Deniers of the soul are subject to the Problem of InductionEdit

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I happen to believe that the soul is proven by OBEs (Out-of-Body-Experiences), Van Lommel studies, NDEs (Near-Death-Experiences) and Phantom Feelings, I think that those who deny the existence of the soul don't know what they are talking about or that they are lying about the issue. Because I sense that they are subject to the Problem of Induction, they don't know about the "black swans" from their "little" Life-Worlds of information!

That is, they have never incarnated (at least never revealed), they have never been forced out of their bodies into seeming death by abuse or wanton of suicide, etc! They don't have it in their "little" Life-Worlds (of first-hand/second-hand information)!

And how difficult can it be? One can never do "soul walking" in forcing oneself out of the body by drowning in a pool or large bathtub because that's illegal! So how can one prove the soul other than scour the Earth for the very stories (the credible ones, possibly also confirmed by MRI/fMRI)?!
(Dualism is winning!) -- (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to learn what the problem of induction actually is, in fact you are falling on that fallacy because you go from the premise (which BTW is false) "Some people have souls" because of the OBE to the conclusion "All human beigns have a soul". That is a clear example of the problem of induction, which obviously is a fallacy. I think all the people (like me) who dont believe in souls just states that there is no provable evidence. I'm open to grant its existence, but only when there is a good reason to do it.

You cite some "evidence" for soul. van Lommel research has been discredited by the scientific community, he just grabs some vague facts and make logical assumptions not granted by evidence or reason. OBE or NDE just proves that humans can see things who arent actually happening, that is consistent with our knowledge of the brain and many common life situations(happens when we sleep, when we are under the influence of some material substances, etc.). Of course you can see yourself as if you are out of your body, you can induce any image to anyone in a guided meditation. That just proves that our brains can be induced. You can have those moments, but in any instant of that "travel" I can manipulate your "soul" acting on your body: if I hit you, or inject you some hallucinogens you can prove that your conciousness was never something independent of your body. If you really can travel in the real world without your body, show me some classified information that you read "inside" an intelligence building, tell me every day the colour of the clothes the guy nextdoor before you see him and then check that info. Those are easily ways the OBE people can show as the thruth. (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Buddhism section needs a correctionEdit

The soul is a lazy explanation of the universe most amazing creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 (talkcontribs) 03:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Development and composition of the soul.Edit

I was wondering if there was an expert on this who could possibly write and post a section on how a soul develops from the joining of a spermatozoa and an ovum. If there is in fact such a thing as a human soul, then its stages of development from inception (It must have a beginning right?) should be included in this article. Perhaps a section on the composition, properties and characteristics of a soul should also be included. I've been told that the soul's destiny is what life is all about. These important issues should not be left out of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not my article, but it could be a case of lack of data here, for little can be measured and reported on, first hand, here, of perception and qualia of consciousness at that state. Though on a physical basis, if soul is a characteristic that permeates the body, it is mostly the mother's soul imparted through sustinance, and under the effects of the DNA of the father's cell. Perhaps some religious special texts describe the theological ideas written on the matter, but science will be void on this matter, most likely. The Christian Bible has a reference where Elizabeth's Baby John leapt in her womb at the approach of Mary with Jesus, indicating the presence of soul and or God with Mary at virtually conception. But that is the extent of that data source and detail, as you have requested, but addresses one of your questions, as to views of the moment the soul may exist. Likewise, from personal experience, soul order structure is related to body size and data absorbed. When I was a small child, human vision was grainy and poor response, and now is quite sharp as an adult, though I feel quite similar in my personal sense of self, thinking that far back how I felt compared to today, being only smarter in the english language and world's dangers and benefits. This may have to do with neural network resolution, as well as quantum entanglement qualia sense structure. But without systemic quantum measurement devices available, the balance between the two is indistinguishable and unmeasurable ... to tell what part is young neural nets, and what part is the soul. For the soul might be perfect and somewhat constant as my experience suggests, and the physical body is restraining senses while growing onto such a quantum entanglement structure soul, or vice versa for other's experience. (LoneRubberDragon) (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The article moves randomly between the idea that the soul has physical qualities such as mass and the idea that it is incorporeal. For example, under "parapsychology," the question of "whether a soul separate from the brain . . . exists" is then addressed with a section on "weight of the soul," as if weight proves or disproves the soul's existence. Yet the opening sentence of the article is "The soul, in many religious, philosophical and mythological traditions, is the incorporeal . . . essence of a living thing." I have three degrees in religious studies and would have gotten a D if I'd turned in something like this for a theology or philosophy of religion class. AmyinNoCal (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Quantum Physcis Mutual Entanglement Permeation SoulEdit


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)


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)


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)


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)


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) (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC),_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 (talkcontribs) 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. (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. (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Page moveEdit

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? --JaGatalk 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? --JaGatalk 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)
  Done Thanks for the open minded discussion. --JaGatalk 15:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problemsEdit

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)

You are the soul.Edit

The cycle of your existence, and the observations you make in that cycle (0<1), are of plurality 'c' of units 1/c, irrespective of whether the unit 1/c is an hour, a year or some other unit of measurement of the interval of your existence. The transformation through that cycle can be marked as (0<u<1), where '0' is your birth and '1' is your death. Symbol 'u' stands for the moment 'now' in which is located your consciousness of existence of that which you are observing. In that unit 'now' there is also your memory and the picture of yourself. The 'now', at the point 'u', is static and of magnitude 1/c, as seen from the outside. The internal plurality of the unit 'u' is variable during the transformation through the cycle (0<u) of your past. It varies as u=n/c. Position 'n' of your consciousness, defined by the limit of your I, decides on the plurality within 'u'. The position 'n' varies as (0<n<c). The u=n/c is one of 'c' units 'now' of your life, each 'now' containing the memory of that which was observed along the interval of (0<u) of your past, from your birth at '0' to the present 'now' at 'u'. Each 'u' is always a 'now' within the larger 'now' of plurality 'c' parts 1/c of your life. KK ( ([[User talk: |talk]]) 13:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC))But who is this 'soul' which does all that observing and who is conscious of existence of that which he observes? Who am I as the 'soul'? I am my self and my memory 'The store of truths' Memory As the 'soul' I come from before my body was born and I shall exist after my body is dead. Neither the beginning '0' nor the end '1' of the interval of time of existence of the observer are perfect. 'Organization of the reality' Reality KK ( (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

The soul is the inner person that perceives, is aware, experiences and thinks. The mind is the souls reality. Some debates about immortality, spirit, immateriality,etc, confuse the basic functions of the soul yet all debates imply these basic functions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayjacobus (talkcontribs) 19:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Holy s*Edit

"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 (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Invention of GodEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 16:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia: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 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 (talkcontribs) 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 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 (talkcontribs) 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 yeilds only two articles, neither of which is able to be viewed:
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:
As for the crediblity of this institution, heretofore referred to as USAF, it is called into question by citations 5-9 on
(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:
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)

Selling one's soul to the DevilEdit

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 sourcesEdit

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)

Abrahamic religions hate fuzzy wuzzy animals?Edit

I'm deeply offended by this statement made in the first section of this page: "Some belief systems (including the Abrahamic religions) argue that only human beings have souls and therefore that among the biological organisms of the Earth only they possess immortality and the possibility of union with the divine" (the citation for this is ONLY about the "union with the divine" and also is derived from other Wikipedia articles instead of a credited outside source). To my knowledge most if not all Abrahamic faiths don't address the issue of animals having souls in texts like the Bible and the Quaran. It therefore has been left open to personal interpretation by members of the priest castes. But show me anyone who has simultaneously owned a dog and believed it to be nothing but a soulless creature. Many if not most dog owners consider their dogs as an integral part of their family and ascribe human emotions and sentiments onto them. I am both a believer in an Abrahamic God and an ethical vegetarian. So if adhere to a Christian belief system but strongly believe that animals to some extent have souls, then the sentence in question is gonna need some actual damn citations from various Abrahamic religions. (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

To me, animals have souls, but not a "spirit" as defined by Abrahamic faiths, and that the souls may not be the same as human souls. I agree that citations are needed. (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, animals do have spirits. If they didn't, they wouldn't join humans (which themselves are animals) in the afterlife. (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the statement should be removed from the lead, and I will do so after posting this comment.
Do "Abrahamic religions" believe that animals have souls? It depends on what you mean by "soul". Catholic theologians (following Aristotle) have long affirmed that animals have souls, but by "soul" they simply mean life, not a spiritual substance capable of surviving the body's death. (For a quick, obviously non-RS source, see here. Also, see this discussion of Thomas Aquinas's views on the soul.) I believe that the Old Testament attributes nefesh (commonly translated as "soul") to animals, although I don't know the relevant verses off-hand. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Fixed the lead. The statement about Jains was also incorrect. The wording implied that Jains believe that all living organisms have souls but that inanimate objects do not. In fact, Jains believe that even pure elemental matter (earth, fire, water, wind) contains souls. See here. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the generalization of this to all Abrahamic faiths is an incorrect statement and find the statement offensive. In Judaism there are five different types of souls not just nefesh and each one has a completely different context. For a reference here is an article by Rabbi Gershom which clearly shows that Judaism is not clear on the subject and it is open to interpretation see Do animals ave souls — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Islam seems to hate animals even more, mostly canids. If you happen to be canine, you're immediately a filthy, mangy, unclean creature, no matter how much of a germaphobe an individual canine may be. (Yes, dogs and wolves have phobias.) (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

PET scanEdit

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   or  ? 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: The soul is not the mind and the mind is not the brain. 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)

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 - 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)

Text in leadEdit

I recently removed the following passage from the lead:

Some belief systems (including the Abrahamic religions) argue that only human beings have souls and therefore that among the biological organisms of the Earth only they possess immortality and the possibility of union with the divine.[1] In contrast others (such as Jains) believe that all biological organisms have souls

My reasons for removing it can be found on this talk page.

Stevertigo has restored that passage to the lead, although he has marked it so that it is hidden to those who are viewing the article. More precisely, he has restored the following text:

belief systems (including the Abrahamic religions) argue that only human beings have souls and therefore that among the biological organisms of the Earth only they possess immortality and the possibility of union with the divine.[2] In contrast others (such as Jains) believe

I take it that Stevertigo restored this text because he was unsure whether it should be removed. I have no real problem with restoring the text, as long as it remains hidden. But I'm curious to know whether Stevertigo (or anyone else) has any particular reason for wanting to keep the text. I think the text makes an unsupportable and false generalization about "Abrahamic religions" and misrepresents Jainism. Again, my reasons can be found here. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that the best way to resolve this would be to make sure that each section of the article makes it clear on who exactly believes what, so that generalizations and simplifications can be avoided and also the lead can improve. The recent distancing of WP Hinduism from this article has me wondering whether inviting some editors from all these projects to review or improve the corresponding sections would help the overall quality of the article. I consider the Hinduism issue especially important, as the ancient Greek philosophers mentioned here took many of their ideas about ψυχή and πνεύμα straight from Hinduism. Hoverfish Talk 18:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The lede as it stands refers too much to animist concepts and doesn't mention Abrahamic faiths as it should. According to the Abrahamic religions, animals don't have souls in the sense that humans to, and certainly no inanimate objects have souls. I will leave it to Phatius to accurately represent the view of Jains. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I still think the lede's statement about "Abrahamic religions" should be qualified somewhat. Perhaps we could say "some Abrahamic religions" or "only human beings have immortal souls". It is quite common to see Christian writers describe animals as having souls: [1][2] --Phatius McBluff (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There is the popular saying in (Orthodox Christian) Greece: "Don't hurt the animals, because they too have souls". It is also used by the clergy especially as a counsel to children. So even if Christian dogma has it that animals do not have immortal souls they are still said to have "souls" by the clergy. Hoverfish Talk 19:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I will be bold and change the wording in the lede to "Some religions (including the Abrahamic religions) teach that only human beings have immortal souls". --Phatius McBluff (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Prominent 'Use' of the Soul in Popular CultureEdit

This new trivia section could become an endless list. The selection here presented expresses a very limited view. Obviously the user who started it likes gothic, but depending on user preferences it can extend to a huge area of literature, cinema and other arts where "soul" is mentioned as an important issue. Can it be limited in scope somehow? Hoverfish Talk 10:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the concept of an IPC section for this topic borders on the farcical. I'm just going to delete it, and any explanations of why it's not utterly ridiculous to have one can go here. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't see how it could be limited in scope, I think removal is the best option. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Immortality is not a necessary characteristic of “soul”Edit

The definition to the concept of “soul” given at the beginning of the article, indicates that the soul must be immortal. Mind you, originally and historically, the concept of “soul” was synonymous with that of “psyche” or “mind.” There is plenty of empirical data to prove that the mind is certainly not immortal. (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction: There is plenty of empirical data to prove that the brain is certainly not immortal. The mind is not synonymous with the brain. There are philosophies, western too, that consider the mind eternal. Hoverfish Talk 13:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  Fixed. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This misunderstanding persists elsewhere in the article. Sean Carroll's position is wrongly stated as "the idea of a soul is in opposition to quantum field theory" and "for a soul to exist" 'Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics.'" This may indeed be Carroll's position, but the context of these quotations implies no such thing. It concerns itself with the incompatibility of physics and an immortal soul. AmyinNoCal (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

originally and historically, the concept of “soul” was synonymous with that of “psyche” or “mind.”

--Please provide a citation for this statement. --Johnywhy (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible copyright problemEdit


This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Change to 'Soul'Edit

Hi Gareth,

Thanks for your note - the change is actually crucial, there is no mention of the soul in the Old Testament / Torah and so any discussion of the Hebrew terms must make it clear that the words translated into the word 'soul' in English do not mean 'soul'. The 'soul' was a Greek concept added to Christianity & Judaism after 300AD. Let me know if you need more detail.

My best,

Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Good morning, Thank you Dan for your kind explanation on my Talk page this morning.
I have restored your revision. Please leave a note when you see this to let me know.
Sincerely,  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 10:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Received - many thanks Gareth.
My best,
Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I shall copy this to the article Talk page to back up our editing. –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 10:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

etymology of word soulEdit

under the entry Soul ( we read "The Modern English word soul is cognate with other Germanic and Baltic terms for the same idea, including Gothic saiwala, Old High German sêula, sêla, Old Saxon sêola, Old Low Franconian sêla, sîla, Old Norse sála as well as Lithuanian siela.

user Remigiu in article False cognate ( added today (2013-06-22 11:49) to the list "German Seele and Lithuanian siela (both meaning "soul")". False cognates are pairs of words in the same or different languages that are similar in form and meaning but have different roots.

is it possible to exist on wikipedia two conflicting information?

PrzeszczeryDoBulu (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also add that the old Germanic words do not mean the same idea. Those old words refer to the living or animate aspect of a thing... not the same as today's Christian notion of some divine entity that exists within a body, (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The word soul came from the Germanic belief in souls being born out of and returning to sacred lakes (see ref. A handbook of germanic etymology---Vladimir Orel (ISBN 90 04 12875 1)). Hence the connection between the Old Saxon word Seola (soul) and the Old Saxon word Seo (sea). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Fictional soulless, Category:Fictional characters who absorb souls, Category:Artificial souls in fictionEdit

I believe these categories to have enough examples that they would be valid. Bleach (manga), Soul Caliber, Final Fantasy VII, Legacy of Kain, Ghost Rider, Spawn. Ryulong is reverting all of my edits. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#CensoredScribe's categories on discussion on how CensoredScribe is inappropriately making dozens of categories of questionable quality. CensoredScribe, this is not the page to make this sort of discussion, either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge with Spirit?Edit

They mean the same thing so, merge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bozo33 (talkcontribs) 21:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Further revision requiredEdit

I have inserted the relevant templates and tags, as I have only been able to complete a partial revision today. In addition to the lack of citations, the text is written in a non-encyclopedic tone—this is not an academic, philosophical or spiritual article. I will attempt to complete it in due course. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Union with the divine may include several concepts including Salvation, Theosis, Henosis, Moksha etc
  2. ^ Union with the divine may include several concepts including Salvation, Theosis, Henosis, Moksha etc

Soul RevolutionEdit

Enlightenment What dose it mean to be enlightened? Light suggest it means you see, know or understand something intellectual, spiritual, or psychological. Being enlightened involve a special understanding. The Soul Revolution conventions are to make a difference in the world and serve a greater good. Individual freedom would end up contributing to revolutionary stirring. Enlightenment is aimed to understand the logic and rationale behind the working of the world. This understanding is the purpose of all human kind. The belief in natural religion that stressed ethical living and rationality came to be deism. The enlightenment will bring a wave of new ideas, vibrations and cosmic radiation. But not everyone will embrace the enlightenments rational ideas.

Truth About Souls and Spiritual Evolution People are selling their souls to the devil out of ignorance its an important problem in the world and people are suffering, till this day people still get influenced. Symbolism is the only thing being done to prevent it. They end up in a parallel hell without anything to show except for becoming a mental slave not being able to react to the souls thoughts that go through their mind .In this dream state they can barely talk about idea, And are made to be, blind to the reason. These things should be talked about in religious churches, schools and the media and the realm of sciences. People need to spread awareness about this serious situation. Once you understand the problem you can resolve them. Spiritual Evolution, Knowledge is power. Christ consciousness is when you have control over what you think and speak. People who sell their souls know what you are saying and thinking. They have black eyes in their reflection. The Truth about God and Divine Reality is Telepathy. Open your mind to the one consciousness. The rest of your destiny is within you.

Saving Souls spreading awareness about this Soul Revolution.

New Thought A system of thought which affirms the unity of God with man, the perfection of all life, and the immortality and eternality of the individual soul forever expanding. Tenets of New Thought:°•Infinite Intelligence or God is omnipotent and omnipresent.°•Spirit is the ultimate reality.°•True human self-hood is divine.°•Divinely attuned thought is a positive force for good.°•All disease is mental in origin.°•Right thinking has a healing effect.

Chakras Energy Centers The perfect awakening of self realization takes place through love. Purification of body, mind and consciousness. Wisdom is the light of liberation, Ignorance is the darkness of suffering .

(Sahasrara) Spiritual comprehension's:I am connected to the Divine Source of the Universe.

(Ajna) Perception,Intuition: My mind is open it new vision. I expand my awareness through my higher self.

(Vishuddha) Philosopher,Expression: I am aligned with my highest truth and communicate this with love and honour. My words echo softly within the Universe.

(Anahata) Sharing,Love,Equilibrium: My heart is open to receive the energy of love. I Radiate this essence, I walk my path with Ease and Grace.

(Manipura) Inspiration,Creative,Wisdom: My will and Divine will are One. I am connected to the abundant flow of the Universe and easily manifest my dreams.

(Swadhisthana) Absorption,Growth: I Love all dimensions of Myself. I delight in weaving the creative tapestry that is my life.

(Muladhara) Creative energy: I am connected with the energy of Mother Earth. My body, mind and spirit are grounded, centered and purified — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parable12 (talkcontribs) 00:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed grammer. Citation neededEdit

I have fixed the grammatical errors mostly. Just need help in finding citations.Freethinker (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

When we eat a good food,we say it is very good with an expression OH! Now who is getting this pleasure ?? When we get pain,who gets the pain ?? Body and organs of our body is the components to receive the joy or pain for our SOUL.

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Soul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Souls are not necessarily immortal, I am changing the first sentenceEdit

The very first sentence states that souls are immortal, by definition. This is contradicted multiple times in the remainder of the article, so I am simply going to edit it. Just one source is the Oxford English Dictionary online edition, which as of 2016-11-30 lists 15 "senses" for the word "soul", and only one "sense" has immortality in the definition. The idea that souls are immortal is strongly linked to Christianity (and Judaism and other related religions), so putting this characteristic in the first sentence seems to minimize other significant religions and philosophical viewpoints. For counter-examples, one need only read later in this article about non-European views on souls. Fluoborate (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Aristotle believed both that all living beings had souls, and that the soul died with them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Immortality is also disputed in Judaism. Made a change to the next sentence and added a citation related to this. Steveok1 (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Johnywhy:: "one need only read later in this article about non-European views on souls." Those non-Europeans used the word "soul"? No-- Europeans, likely Christians, must have translated non-European words into the word "soul". That's a form of arrogant cultural presumption. Those sections should be removed-- this article is about the European word "soul", and thus the European conception of soul. The article is not about words in other cultures that some European Christian decided are synonyms for "soul".

"Psyche" and Other Etymologically-Unrelated Words Should Be Moved To "Synonyms"Edit

Johnywhy (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"Soul or psyche (Greek: "psychē", of "psychein", "to breathe") are the mental abilities of a living being: reason, character, feeling, consciousness, memory, perception, thinking, etc."

This article is about soul, not psyche. The excerpt above casually equates them, without providing any evidence they are synonyms. In an article which defines a WORD, it's critical that all words be used carefully, not casually.

* If the 2 words are idiomatically synonymous today, that needs a reference. The way it's currently written, it implies the words are used interchangeably today, which i doubt.
* If they were synonymous some time in the past, that needs a reference. Even if "psyche" might be shown to have been synonymous with "soul" at some point in the past, that does not make "psyche" part of the etymology of "soul".

Inclusion of the word "psyche" in the article could be a religiously-motivated attempt to create the impression that "soul" has a scientific basis.

There are other ancient words mentioned in the etymology section, which are NOT shown to be part of the etymology of SOUL. It appears the only reason they are included is because the author of the section believes they have a similar meaning. Similar meaning does NOT make a word part of the ETYMOLOGY. Those words should be moved as well. "Etymology" does not mean thesaurus.

False EquivalenceEdit

Johnywhy (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC) The article opens with a contradictory false equivalence.

In many religious, philosophical and mythological traditions, there's a belief in the incorporeal essence of a living being, which Christo-Europeans call the soul. [1] Soul or psyche (Greek: "psychē", of "psychein", "to breathe") are the mental abilities of a living being: reason, character, feeling, consciousness, memory, perception, thinking, etc.

The first paragraph specifically uses the word "incorporeal", which means "WITHOUT a physical body, presence or form", which currently has NO scientific evidence.

The second paragraph lists "reason, character, feeling, consciousness, memory, perception, thinking, etc.", ALL of which have DO have scientific evidence as being WITH a physical body, presence or form.

This may be an attempt to create the impression that a non-physical "soul" is scientifically grounded.

External links modifiedEdit

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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Stevenson reincarnation researchEdit

  Moved from User talk:Jmcgnh: content discussion, so belongs here

The line that I add a reference to is:

"Others point to research that has been conducted at the University of Virginia as proof that some people are reborn"

Since 'others' can include anyone, I think I should be able to cite this website: Citing Stevenson himself is incorrect, as he did not point to research done at UV, he actually did it. On what other basis should I not include this reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trutheyeness (talkcontribs) 10:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Trutheyeness: That website does not appear to be what WP considers a WP:reliable source.
Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~.
Again, this discussion should occur on the talk page of the article. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 14:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jmcgnh: Thanks for the feedback jmcgnh. I'll move the discussion to that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trutheyeness (talkcontribs) 18:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Content forkEdit

A recently created article (Animal souls) is a fork of this article. I have gone ahead and turned that article into a redirect, but here is a link to the last non-redirect revision for merging purposes. signed, Rosguill talk 02:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It is likely the Self was mistaken for the SoulEdit

Since the accumulation of knowledge in science and medicine has often challenged our understanding of past conclusions. It is likely the Self was mistaken for the Soul. And the physical body and the physical brain which houses the mind are one; and Dualism is a fantasy. See:Psychiatry for Social Workers by Alistair Munro M.D. and Wallace McCulloch M.Sc., Pergamon Press,London,1969, page.109 Miistermagico (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

make paragraphsEdit

Thinking process (of the soul), but don't write "of the soul"Edit

If experiencing doesn't lead to awareness and if it doesn't get integrated; then having a soul is the same as not having one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4114:6100:8488:4981:EF3C:463D (talkcontribs)

  Not done Wikipedia does not use original research. You must cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources for your claims (see WP:BURDEN). Ian.thomson (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

information theoryEdit

add quotations of logicians and mathematicians, who used information theory in their analyses— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4114:6100:8488:4981:EF3C:463D (talkcontribs)

No, you add it -- but only if you cite secondary or tertiary professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that specifically address the matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"Science" sectionEdit

1. The topic of this article lies outside the scientific domain. The section labeled science is NOT science, it is merely deceptive persuasive commentary promoting the personal philosophical views of the authors, who happen to also be scientists, and so act with entitlement to label product of their own musings as scientific.

2. Again, more importantly, this topic has nothing to do with science, therefore the science section has no place here. It is as out of place as a section of the page for quantum mechanics titled "jewish rabbinic perspectives" Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I think the purpose of that section has to do with findings/perspectives related to scientific investigations of the topic, and does not approach metaphysics beyond the points of view presented. The overall message appears to be "There is no scientific evidence for the soul", which I don't see as contentious (save for parapsychologists). GVO8891 (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

== Orthodox Greeks use the Greek word for soul as a Wiktionary template, other nouns have similar declension to psyche (ψυχή), we aren't supposed to select politically motivated templates; not all Greeks are rightists, racists or theists == μη θρησκευτικό πρότυπο - τα πρότυπα κλίσης δεν πρέπει να είναι πολιτικά ή θρησκευτικά κινούμενα

These Orthodox people, even delete the history of the list of the alternative and similar templates for declension.

  • this is the superior alternative: μουσική = music
  • φυσική (physics) bad template, because some people hate physics
  • σιγή (silence) is problematic, because the plural is rare

Christian oppression of opinions which support the importance of the brain (neuroscience) and that a soul is impossibleEdit

They oppress us. The delete non-religious opinions.
The anterior cingulate cortex ACC isn't the same on all humans. People have different sizes and functionality. The ACC is crucial for behaviour. It inhibits immediate and extreme emotional reactions and promotes social connectivity. Thus god didn't create the instument of free will (brain) equal, thus we cannot blame randomness itself or some unspecified evil, but god himself for not creating all people fair... but it's more simple not to blame the precosmic personhood, and simply to understand that metalogically prephysical personhood is metalogically wrong being non-fundamental and self-causal as algebraic topology and set theory, for example filter (mathematics) (many topological spaces can be created mathematically, they are separate, but metalogically are rigorous and full; personhood is NOT rigorous as a simple (philosophy) because according to information theory it requires memory of many shannons).

A debate about animal soulsEdit

There are some things I just don't get about this particular debate. If only human souls are immortal, then why are non-human animals depicted as being a part of Heaven? If their souls weren't immortal, they would just die and become nothing. In fact, why is the mere existence of animal souls even debated? People argue, as this article mentions, that only humans have souls as if to say animals can't think, feel, or have personality which it's been scientifically proven that they can. (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

These questions assume that:
  • One particular religion (or at least their concept of an afterlife) is empirically proven.
  • That particular religion is in agreement as to what form the afterlife takes.
  • That popular culture doesn't mess up in their depictions of that afterlife.
Those three above points are far from true. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Soul" page.