Right, the ‘scientific soul’ would be the “best” definition of a soul under a purely physicalism world view, which is the world view I have. If you’re saying that the ‘scientific soul’ is not “good enough” to be a ‘real’ soul, I would argue that under a materialism world view there IS no definition of a ‘soul,’ as in, one does not exist.

Now, it seems some people here would disagree with that, but I would argue that they do NOT have a materialism world view, but an idealism world view. However, I have never had an idealism world view, and as such don’t understand it as well as I could.

I was hoping that people might start stating their own definition of a “soul.” As I said, when talking about a “soul” you really can’t go mixing an matching bumumptions. I would like to know what others think so this can be discussed better.