The Immaterial Mind

[Meursault]

if one conceives "soul" as something coexistent with Self and inhering therein, i can see no need for a separate word ("soul") and would thus want to borrow the razor to excise it as a superfluity. if, on the other hand, one conceives "soul" as perhaps something outside Self that simply reaches into Self temporarily, like water filling a crack, until a 'person' dies, i must wonder what distinguishes this from "life force" or "god" or whatever.
and, while the answer might be interesting, i doubt we are constitutionally equipped for answering it in a way that would satisfy any scientist. we may indeed gather more information as we extend our reach and our eyes with the tools we construct, but there may yet be mental limitations to contend with. just as the questions of quantum physics reduce to questions of an uncaused cause we cannot conceive, so too may we be unable to comprehend a "soul" greater than the individual.
as far as i can tell consciousness is an epiphenomenon of neural activity, achieving 'reality' only as does a virtual particle, when its existence is suspended (as a ping-pong ball might be 'suspended' on a cushion of air, not in the sense of 'suspended animation') by a certain threshold and concentration _of activity. 'self', then, would be a construct representing what consciousness 'controls' or finds most permanently attached (to it'self', haha). if there is a "higher" (greater) consciousness (universal 'soul') arising from the activity of All, we would have to comprehend All to comprehend _it. a part that can comprehend the whole seems a bit paradoxical.
hope that's not a thread-killer lol

__________________
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. --Emerson