Soul

==Science==
According to Julien Musolino, the scientific consensus holds that the mind is a complex machine that operates on the same physical laws as all other objects in the universe.<ref name="Musolino2015">{{cite book|last=Musolino|first=Julien|date=2015|title=The Soul Fallacy: What Science Shows We Gain from Letting Go of Our Soul Beliefs|location=Amherst, New York|publisher=Prometheus Books|isbn=978-1-61614-962-8|pages=21–38}}</ref> According to Musolino, there is currently no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the existence of soul.<ref name="Musolino2015"/>

The search for the soul is seen to have been instrumental in driving the understanding of the anatomy and physiology of the human body, particularly in the fields of cardiovascular and neurology.<ref name="Santoro">{{cite journal |last1=Santoro |first1=G |last2=Wood |first2=MD |last3=Merlo |first3=L |last4=Anastasi |first4=GP |last5=Tomasello |first5=F |last6=Germanò |first6=A |title=The anatomic location of the soul from the heart, through the brain, to the whole body, and beyond: a journey through Western history, science, and philosophy. |journal=Neurosurgery |date=October 2009 |volume=65 |issue=4 |pages=633–43; discussion 643 |doi=10.1227/01.NEU.0000349750.22332.6A |pmid=19834368|s2cid=27566267 }}</ref> In the two dominant conflicting concepts of the soul – one seeing it to be spiritual and immortal, and the other seeing it to be material and mortal, both have described the soul as being located in a particular organ or as pervading the whole body.<ref name="Santoro"/>

===Neuroscience===
[[Neuroscience]] as an [[interdisciplinary]] field, and its branch of [[cognitive neuroscience]] particularly, operates under the [[ontology|ontological]] assumption of [[physicalism]]. In other words, it assumes that only the fundamental phenomena studied by [[physics]] exist. Thus, neuroscience seeks to understand mental phenomena within the framework according to which human [[thought]] and [[behavior]] are caused solely by physical processes taking place inside the brain, and it operates by the way of [[reductionism]] by seeking an explanation for the mind in terms of brain activity.<ref>[[O. Carter Snead]]. "[https://www.brookings.edu/research/cognitive-neuroscience-and-the-future-of-punishment/ Cognitive Neuroscience and the Future of Punishment] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141105165031/http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/12/28%20neuroscience%20snead/1228_neuroscience_snead.pdf |date=5 November 2014 }}" (2010).</ref><ref>Kandel, ER; Schwartz JH; Jessell TM; Siegelbaum SA; Hudspeth AJ. "[https://books.google.com/books?id=s64z-LdAIsEC Principles of Neural Science, Fifth Edition]" (2012).</ref>

To study the mind in terms of the brain several methods of [[functional neuroimaging]] are used to study the neuroanatomical correlates of various [[cognition|cognitive processes]] that constitute the mind. The evidence from brain imaging indicates that all processes of the mind have physical correlates in brain function.<ref>Andrea Eugenio Cavanna, Andrea Nani, Hal Blumenfeld, Steven Laureys. "[https://books.google.com/books?id=YQZomQEACAAJ Neuroimaging of Consciousness]" (2013).</ref> However, such correlational studies cannot determine whether neural activity plays a causal role in the occurrence of these cognitive processes ([[correlation does not imply causation]]) and they cannot determine if the neural activity is either [[necessity and sufficiency|necessary or sufficient]] for such processes to occur. Identification of [[causality|causation]], and of necessary and sufficient conditions requires explicit experimental manipulation of that activity. If manipulation of brain activity changes consciousness, then a causal role for that brain activity can be inferred.<ref name="Murphy">{{cite journal|last=Farah|first=Martha J.|author2=Murphy, Nancey|title=Neuroscience and the Soul|journal=Science|date=February 2009|volume=323|issue=5918|page=1168|doi=10.1126/science.323.5918.1168a|pmid=19251609|s2cid=6636610}}</ref><ref>Max Velmans, Susan Schneider. "[https://books.google.com/books?id=B1lRZmOzuJ0C The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness]" (2008). p. 560.</ref> Two of the most common types of manipulation experiments are loss-of-function and gain-of-function experiments. In a loss-of-function (also called "necessity") experiment, a part of the nervous system is diminished or removed in an attempt to determine if it is necessary for a certain process to occur, and in a gain-of-function (also called "sufficiency") experiment, an aspect of the nervous system is increased relative to normal.<ref>Matt Carter, Jennifer C. Shieh. "[https://books.google.com/books?id=3rT4ngEACAAJ Guide to Research Techniques in Neuroscience]" (2009).</ref> Manipulations of brain activity can be performed with direct [[electrical brain stimulation]], magnetic brain stimulation using [[transcranial magnetic stimulation]], [[psychoactive drug|psychopharmacological]] manipulation, [[optogenetics|optogenetic]] manipulation, and by studying the symptoms of [[brain damage]] (case studies) and [[lesion]]s. In addition, neuroscientists are also investigating how the mind develops with the development of the brain.<ref>Squire, L. et al. "[https://books.google.com/books?id=AEmEn-_hD9IC Fundamental Neuroscience, 4th edition]" (2012). Chapter 43.</ref>

====Near-death experience====
Neuroscience research hypothesizes that a [[near-death experience]] (an NDE) is a [[wikt:subjective#Adjective|subjective]] [[hallucination|phenomenon]] resulting from "disturbed bodily multisensory integration" that occurs during life-threatening events.<ref name=blanke2009>{{Cite book|title=The Neurology of Consciousness|last=Blanke|first=Olaf|publisher=London: Academic Publishers, 2009|year=2009|isbn=978-0-12-374168-4|location=London|pages=303–324}}</ref>
Some researchers of near-death experiences consider such a phenomenon as a challenge to the [[materialist]] assumptions about the relationship between mind and brain.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Parnia|first=Sam|date=February 2017|title=Understanding the cognitive experience of death and the near-death experience|url=https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article-abstract/110/2/67/2681812?redirectedFrom=fulltext|journal=QJM: An International Journal of Medicine|volume=110|issue=2|pages=67–69|doi=10.1093/qjmed/hcw185|pmid=28100825|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Greyson|first=Bruce|date=2010|title=Implications of Near-Death Experiences for a Postmaterialist Psychology|url=https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2017/01/NDE62_postmaterialist-PRS.pdf|journal=Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 2010, Vol. 2, No. 1, 37– 45}}</ref> Sam Parnia and others have suggested that a mind that is mediated by, but not produced by the brain is a possible way to explain NDE.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Sleutjes A, Moreira-Almeida A, Greyson B | date = Nov 2014 | title = Almost 40 years investigating near-death experiences: an overview of mainstream scientific journals | journal = J Nerv Ment Dis | volume = 202 | issue = 11| pages = 833–6 | doi = 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000205 | pmid = 25357254 | s2cid = 16765929 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|first=Jonathan|last=Petre|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/1371323/Soul-searching-doctors-find-life-after-death.html|title=Soul-searching doctors find life after death|publisher=The Telegraph|date=22 October 2000|quote=These people were having these experiences when we wouldn't expect them to happen, when the brain shouldn't be able to sustain lucid processes or allow them to form memories that would last. So it might hold an answer to the question of whether mind or consciousness is actually produced by the brain or whether the brain is a kind of intermediary for the mind, which exists independently.... I started off as a sceptic but, having weighed up all the evidence, I now think that there is something going on. Essentially, it comes back to the question of whether the mind or consciousness is produced from the brain. If we can prove that the mind is produced by the brain, I don't think there is anything after we die because essentially we are conscious beings. If, on the contrary, the brain is like an intermediary which manifests the mind, like a television will act as an intermediary to manifest waves in the air into a picture or a sound, we can show that the mind is still there after the brain is dead. And that is what I think these near-death experiences indicate}}</ref>

===Physics===
Physicist [[Sean M. Carroll]] has written that the idea of a soul is incompatible with [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). He writes that for a soul to exist: "Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics. Within QFT, there can't be a new collection of 'spirit particles' and 'spirit forces' that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments."<ref>{{cite web|first=Sean|last=Carroll|url=https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/|title=Physics and the Immortality of the Soul|date=May 23, 2011|type=blog|access-date=March 21, 2024}}</ref>

[[Quantum indeterminacy|Quantum indeterminism]] has been invoked as an explanatory mechanism for possible soul/brain interaction, but neuroscientist Peter Clarke found errors with this viewpoint, noting there is no evidence that such processes play a role in brain function; Clarke concluded that a [[Cartesian dualism|Cartesian]] soul has no basis from quantum physics.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Clarke|first=Peter G. H.|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278262613001711|title=Neuroscience, Quantum Indeterminism and the Cartesian Soul|journal=Brain and Cognition|date=November 21, 2013|volume=84|issue=1|pages=109–117|doi=10.1016/j.bandc.2013.11.008|pmid=24355546 |access-date=March 21, 2024|issn=0278-2626|quote=Quantum indeterminism is frequently invoked as a solution to the problem of how a disembodied soul might interact with the brain (as Descartes proposed), and is sometimes invoked in theories of libertarian free will even when they do not involve dualistic assumptions. [...] I conclude that Heisenbergian uncertainty is too small to affect synaptic function, and that amplification by chaos or by other means does not provide a solution to this problem. Furthermore, even if Heisenbergian effects did modify brain functioning, the changes would be swamped by those due to thermal noise.}}</ref>