nameless,

Sorry, but I can not really be a partner in such a hateful discussion because such discussion is against the rules of the forum as set down by its owner.

Your post is very cruel and not thoughtful at all. I really don't appreciate the gratuitous invective and name-calling.

More importantly, science does not even demand that the soul doesn't exist, there are many great scientists who are active today who believe.

Any decent and intelligent person would know this.

Religion doesn't refute science

and science doesn't refute religion

or else one would abolish the other.

Your thoughtless and cruel attitude doesn't really have a place in this forum in my opinion.

...that's similarly outside the interest of science and more pertinent to one's hopes, fears, and religious beliefs.

hopes, fears, and religious beliefs.

Would not logic assume then, that the claim should not have been made. Many such claims and the individual making them would be taken for town fool.

Then why is this not under the religion section.

(Not odd at all that other 'believers' 'thank' (agree) with you.)

Oh my!

No particular conception, I'm leaving it totally open to what ever conception one has.

How about 'soul' as the integration of multiple perspectives? One hundred billion axons in each brain have 10,000 connections to other axons [1]. The meaningful networks they form, somehow validly and reliably represent the environment. They evolve all the time but are the only cells in the body which aren't replaced once every quarter. The 'maps' [2] that are developed, reuse the same objects as references, and eventually reuse the references themselves. This not only brings physical perspectives together, but can also account for synthesis of abstract thoughts and private definitions of one's situation. How else could enlightenment ever have begun? Of course we do have to monitor the validity and reliability of those perspectives. We do so by ourselves but also by critical examination of other people's perspectives.

[1] Samba Internet iA Notebook How the Mind Works: Revelations
[2] Cortical homunculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Duck, evade, hide, defend, tattle, whatever works for you for that with which you are incapable or unwilling to discuss.
I call a spade a spade, as I see it. I don't dissemble. Truth hurts. If it 'hurts' too much, perhaps a 'different play-ground'? (Something about the 'heat' and a 'kitchen'...) After all, that is all that has happened, about which you are whining. I will not dissemble to spare your delicate ego. This is a 'philosophy board' and ego is out of place here, delicate or otherwise, not honest discussion (unless it is about 'ego')...
in my opinion.

The study of theistic psychology starts and ends with human mental anatomy. Non-theistic psychology has nothing to say about mental anatomy because it equates the mind with the brain. Mental states involving sensations, thoughts and feelings are equated with physical neural or electro-chemical operations in the physical brain. Non-theistic psychology denies that the mind exists. It asserts that only the brain exists. Since non-theistic psychology adopts this materialistic perspective without proving that it is correct, we will call it the negative bias in science (see Section xx).
In contrast, theistic psychology asserts that there are two separate but interacting worlds, namely, the physical world of time-space-matter, and the mental world of sensations, thoughts and feelings which are operations of the mind that are not in time, not in space, and do not involve physical matter. This separate world outside time-space-matter is in the mental world of eternity, which is also called the spiritual world. In other words, when we are conceived and born we come into existence with two bodies, one physical and the other spiritual. The physical body and spiritual body are tied to each other by functional laws of correspondence, which we will study later. These laws of correspondence are actually cause-effect laws that tie together the two worlds. Nothing can happen in one world that is not tied completely to something happening in the other world.

Sounds like out-dated dualism to me. What do the rest of you make of this?

We should not be put down by the sheer number of cross-references that our minds hold, supposedly to create consciousness. Remember they are bundled into ever higher structures and finally into the corpus calossum binding the left brain (LB) to the right brain (RB), which makes it sort of binary. When one half drops away by injury, then we either become more creative in RB or more analytically-structured in LB. But the point i would like to make here, is that these bundles are like relations between entities, such as highways relating one city to another. I believe these highways exist in our minds and they are either more associative non-logical (irrational) or more logical, like "leads to", "assumes", "consists of" etc. And the entities are mental notes we make, either of experiential facts or of pointed ideas apriori that we have not realized yet. Anyway, all these entities can get connected through brain activity (thinking, learning or conditioning). This happens in contexts or concepts. Of each one we can make maps and maps can reuse entities and relations so that they become more theory-laden. The more meaningful each entity (I like to call them "notes") becomes in each meaningful context or concept it plays a role in, the more likely that it starts 'a life of its own', having all these connections, properties, behaviors (logical operators of their relations). That is when there is a bit of soul. I believe I can sometimes look at it immediately when I nearly fall asleep or just got awake, and can assess what is happening in my mind, 'autonomously'.

An honest discussion here when it comes remotely close to Christianity is called, Christian baiting,

But the way I see it, to describe a pure, soul, which can live on, after death, we must begin to look beyond the regular theories, beyond dualism and into a three way state of soul, body and mind.

Personally I would say Cartesian Dualism is still a good source in the search for an afterlife. I would hardly say it is outdated. But then again I'm not a psychologist, so I'm not very aware of the theories put forward in that area of field.

But the way I see it, to describe a pure, soul, which can live on, after death, we must begin to look beyond the regular theories, beyond dualism and into a three way state of soul, body and mind.