Such a thing as a "soul" has never been measured. The concept of "mind" on
the other hand, though quite broad and general, is a very useful
representation of both conscious and unconscious processes which manifest in
thoughts and behaviors. Perhaps the terms should be considered as
interchangeable as you suggest? My experience is that "soul" is more often
considered as vaguely pertaining to some dimension of consciousness or the
mind, which somehow transcends physical reality. Personally, I find this
kind of thinking to be creative, but wholly unsubstantiated. I think
"soul" can be a useful expression or idea, but should be considered as pure
metaphor.
Schuyler
James Teo <james.teo at chch.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:399e876b.1170276 at news.freeserve.net...
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:52:04 -0400, "Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net>
> wrote:
> >You are confused by the endless struggle to show that "mind" and "soul"
are
> >not synonymous. Once it is clear that they are synonyms, everything falls
> >into place. Few neuroscientists (other than the seekers of the NCC) are
> >interested in the soul (mind). This is one of the things that they agree
to
> >"put to one side" while they study the brain. On the other hand, the
> >cognitive scientists are interested in little else.
>
