A "soul theorist", according to Thomas Edison (1910), is someone who speculates on "will", immortality, and or morality, via science. |
# | Theorist | Date | Summary |
1. | (2635-2595BC) | c.2600BC | |
2. | (c.570-490BC) | 500BC | ythagoras believed in the transmigration of souls and therefore, via reason of logic, was a vegetarian, and did not want to eat the body of an animal (compare: Newton in Senegal) that might be the abode of a dead friend. (Ѻ) |
3. | (c.460-370BC) | 400BC | |
4. | (427-348BC) | 380BC | |
5. | (384-322BC) | c.310BC | Believed a fetus in early gestation has the soul of a vegetable, then of an animal, and only later became "animated" with a human soul by "ensoulment", which occurred 40 days after conception for male fetuses and 90 days after conception for female fetuses, the stage at which, it was held, movement is first ‘felt’ within the womb and pregnancy was certain. (Ѻ) Considered the soul to be part of the natural world and measurable by science (Ѻ). |
6. | (99-55BC) | 55BC | “The soul is material, for without touch how can it direct and act on the body? It is closely united to the body; just as it is hard to separate the odor from a lump of frankincense without destroying it, so it is impossible to part soul and body without destroying both. The soul does not live ‘in a den of its own’,' but is spread all over the body. It ‘grows along with the body, together with its members, within the very blood.’ The atoms forming it are vastly different from those composing flesh and bone. They are ‘exceedingly small, smooth and round’; how much Epicurus thinks to be implied in such special fineness of atomic composition, we have seen already. The soul-atoms are also fewer and at far greater intervals than those of the body. The bulk of the soul is exceedingly small compared with that of the body.” |
7. | Avicenna (Ibn Sina) (980-1037) | c.1010 | View: the soul is an “incorporeal substance” that acts “through the body”. (Ѻ) |
8. | (994-1064) | 1022 | |
(1194-1250) | c.1235 | Conducted soul experiments. | |
9. | (1533-1592) | c.1590 | In his personal copy of Greek atomic theory philosopher Lucretius' circa 75BC On the Nature of Things, marked the many passages in the poem that seemed to him ‘against religion’, namely against religio-teachings such as creation ex nihilo, divine province, judgment after death. “Fear of death is the cause of all our vices”, is one margin note. In a number of places, he kept making reading note comments about how the soul is corporeal (see: soul theorist), as the book was arguing: [1]“The soul is bodily” (296) These personal reading notes, made by Montaigne, are said to suggest a fascination with the most radical conclusions to be drawn from Lucretian materialism. |
(1578-1657) | c.1630 | View: “Whatever the power be that creates such an animal out of an egg, that it is either the soul, or part of the soul, or something having a soul, or something existing previous to, and more excellent than the soul, operating with intelligence and foresight.” | |
9. | (1596-1650) See: Descartes on the soul | 1640 | |
10. | (1592-1655) | c.1640 | Quote [following Lucretius]: “If you can conceive the whole of the soul to be gathered into one mass, it would occupy a mere point almost, or the very tiniest space.” (Ѻ) Synthesized a mixture of Aristotle’s view and Epicurus’ view to postulate that the aim of the soul is to achieve tranquility and freedom from troubles and fears. (Ѻ) |
11. | (1720-1793) | 1769 | In his Philosophical Palingénésie (Regeneration Philosophy), Volume 1 (pg. 50), the noted great chain of being theorist, stated something along the lines of the following:“If someone ever demonstrated that the soul is material, they should not be alarmed; should we not admire the power which gave the material the ability to think?” This statement is the opening quote to Joseph Priestley’s 1777 soul treatise (see below). |
12. | (1733-1804) | 1777 | Published Disquisitions Relating to Matter and Spirit: the History of the Philosophical Doctrine Concerning the Origin of the Soul, and the Nature of Matter; with its Influence on Christianity, Especially with Reflection to the Doctrine of the Pre-existence of Christ, wherein, supposedly, he espoused a materialist philosophy, which entailed denial of free will and the soul (specifically: he denied the materialism of the soul, while simultaneously claiming its existence, in some way), and argued that there is no mind-body duality. |
13. | (1724-1804) | c.1780 | Wrote that the human soul "resides in a place of a smallness impossible to describe"; in another instance he stated: "If I am asked where the seat of the soul is in the body, I begin to suspect something crooked in the question." [5] |
14. | (1755-1830) | 1795 | |
15. | (1749-1832) See: Goethe on the soul | 1809 | |
16. | (1769-1821) See: Napoleon on the soul | 1817/20 | In 1817, began to query various physicians about having ever seen the "soul" during their dissections of the brain. As Napoleon commented in April of 1817 during a conversation with Gourgaud who at the time was praising the Celestial Mechanics of Laplace: “I often asked Laplace what he thought of God. He owned he was an atheist. Many crimes have been committed in the name of religion. The oldest religion is the worship of the sun [Ra theology]. Where is the soul of an infant? I cannot remember what I was before I was born; and what will become of my soul after my death? As to my body, it will become carrots or turnips. I have no dread of death. In the army I have seen many men suddenly perish who were talking with me.” The subject of the nature of the soul was a question that plagued Napoleon up until his last days. In fact, in 1820, a year before his death, Napoleon was experimenting with seeds and plants of melon, spinach, sorrel, asparagus, salad, artichokes, cucumber, radishes, and endives, to figure out or rather gain insight into the search for the origin of life and nature of the soul. During these investigations, Napoleon entered into a dialog with his personal physician Francois Antommarchi as to the whereabouts of the soul, during which time he commented again on his retrospect conversation with Laplace on God: ‘You do not believe it, you doctors are above such weakness. Tell me, you who know so well the human body, who have probed into all its ramifications, have you ever come across the soul under your scalpel? Where is it? In which organ?’ 'I hesitated to respond,' says Antommarchi. |
17. | Ludwig Colding (1843)? | ||
18. | Hermann Helmholtz (c.1850)? | ||
19. | Peter Tait (1875) | ||
20. | Balfour Stewart | 1875 | Discussed "mental forces" and the soul in his book The Conservation of Energy. |
21. | (1832-1896) | c.1880 | In a Sep speech, delivered at the start of the Faculties of Rennes, after discussing Rene Descartes, he regrets the division, i.e. two cultures split, that has developed between science and philosophy, and states the following:“They cut the man into two parts, soul and body, the philosopher took one, and another naturalist, they both have worked, studied on their behalf have lost sight and we find ourselves today in the presence of a duality, convenient perhaps, but unwise, in that it overlooked the man to deal with only two elements that constitute it. But in doing so we run the risk of being wrong. If one wanted to know the chemical properties of water [H2O], seek it in those of oxygen [O2] and hydrogen [H2]? No, because he knows that there is little relationship between the characteristics of a substance and those of simple bodies which enter into its composition. In these penetrating comments, we see Massieu digging into some of the very same comments that exist in modern times, when confronted with the logic of the person viewed as the human molecule, and the question of what to do with incongruous concepts, such as soul, life, free will, choice, etc., that have never been applied to chemicals in their reactions. |
22. | James Martineau | c.1888 | |
23. | Robert Thurston | 1894 | Quote: “we are gradually progressing towards the establishment of a law of persistence of all existence, whether of matter, of force and energy, or of organic vitality, and perhaps even to its extension until it includes intellectual and soul life.” [3] |
24. | (1834-1919) | c.1895 | |
25. | Nathaniel Shaler | c.1900 | |
26. | (c.1866-1920) | 1901 | |
27. | (1853-1932) | 1906 | In his his Ingersoll lecture (Ѻ) on "Individuality and Immortality", on what a physicist and chemist has to say on the question of the mortality and or immortality of the individual from the point of view of energetics; for example:“If a chemist or physicist of to-day is asked about his ideas on immortality, his first feeling will be that of some astonishment. He meets with no question in his work which is connected with this one, and his reply may usually be classified under one of two heads. He may remember the religious impressions which have clung to him since his youth, kept alive by him or nearly forgotten, as the case may be, and he will then explain that such questions are in no way connected with his science; for the objects treated by his science are non-living matter. This is immediately evident in physics, and while there exists an organic chemistry, he will explain that any matter which is called organic in his sense is decidedly dead before it can become the object of his investigation. It is only the inanimate part of the world which concerns him scientifically, and any ideas he may hold about the question of immortality are his private opinions and quite independent of his science. Or he may dismiss his interlocutor still more shortly by saying from his standpoint of matter-and-motion: Soul is a function of living matter only. The moment life ceases in an organized body the value of this function becomes zero, and there is no further question about immortality.” |
28. | (1847-1931) See: Edison on the soul | 1910 | Edison: “No one thinks of claiming immortality for the cylinders or the phonograph. Then why claim it for the brain mechanism or the power that drives it? Because we do not know what this power is, shall we call it immortal? As we call electricity immortal because we do not know what it is. The brain, like the phonographic cylinder, is a mere record, not of sounds alone, but of other things which have been impressed upon it by the mysterious power which actuates it. Perhaps it would be better to call a recording office, where records are made and stored. But no matter what you call it, it is a mere machine, and even the most enthusiastic soul theorist will concede that machines are not immortal.” Edison: “After death the force, or power, we call ‘will’ undoubtedly endures; but it endures in this world, not in the next. And so with the thing we call life, or the soul—mere speculative terms for a material thing which, under given conditions, drives this way or that. It too endures in this world, not the other.” |
29. | Harry Laverne Twining (1863-1947) | 1915 | In his The Physical Theory of the Soul (Ѻ), described various experiments, which he had conducted, to determine if mice had measurable souls which left when they died, the first firstly on scales using cyanide and in another experiment a sealed glass jar, through death via asphyxiation. (Ѻ) |
30. | James Hyslop (1918)? | ||
31. | Frederick Soddy (1919)? | ||
32. | Albert Mathews (c .1920) | ||
33. | (1879-1955) See: Einstein on the soul | 1921 | |
34. | Edwin Slosson (1925)? | ||
Odilie Watson (1920-2007) | c.1932 | | |
35. | Pierre Teilhard (1934)? | ||
36. | (1901-1976) See: Heisenberg on the soul | 1952 | |
37. | Mehdi Bazargan (1954)? | ||
38. | (1895-1966) | 1964 | |
39. | Person (add) | 1978 | |
40. | Donald Gilbert Carpenter | 1980 | Building on McDougall’s work, suggested (1984) that the energy required for a ghost to function is around 60 joules; proposed (1998), based on sheep data, that the soul is quantized in units of 20 to 30 joules, a unit he proposed to call the “mac”, in honor of Douglas MacDougall; his 1998 ebook Physically Weighting the Soul, reports on his dog’s soul weighing experiments, according to which he finds that a dog’s soul weighs less than 1.8 grams. [6] |
41. | Louis Vincent (1988) | ||
42. | Plinio Prioreschi (1990) | ||
43. | Ronald Pearson (1990)? | ||
44. | Frank Tipler (1994) | ||
45. | Angela Tilby (1995) | ||
46. | Migene Wippler (1997) | ||
47. | (1956-) | 1998 | “Soul is the (obligatory) negative entropy (i.e., energy/weight equivalent) that is necessary to allow for the nonequilibrium meta-stable physical 'quasi-steady-state' of a living/conscious biological system.”A diagram of Nahum's electromagnetic field soul detection device is shown adjacent. |
48. | Amit Goswami | 2001 | In his Physics of the Soul: the Quantum Book of Living, Dying, Reincarnation, and Immortality, he discusses entropy. |
49. | Leong Ying | 2002 | |
50. | Steven Rosen | 2002 | |
51. | 2004 | In his Finding a Replacement for the Soul: Mind and Meaning in Literature and Philosophy (Ѻ), building on the literary and philosophical challenges presented James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake and Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations, asserts that, via the mechanism of literature, we have “we produce nonsense and imagine it as sense”; quote: (Ѻ) “In making such a claim: ‘the soul does not exist’; ‘ether does not exist’, I am circumscribing legitimate concepts and claims.” | |
52. | Len Fisher | 2004 | As a child, after being told by his Sunday school teachers that his soul was deep inside of him, he shined a flashlight down his throat while looking in a mirror to see if he could get a glimpse of his soul, which he imagined was rather like a Gummi baby; authored the 2004 Weighing the Soul: the Evolution of Scientific Beliefs (2004) and the A Perfect Swarm (2009). |
53. | Mary Roach | 2005 | |
54. | DMR Sekhar | 2006 | |
55. | Brian Schill | 2008 | |
56. | Bruce Bathurst (c.1945-) | 2009 | Argued that he is not a molecule, and that people are not molecules in general, per the logic that he has a soul, which is under the operation or auspices of god, not measurable by science. |
57. | Dorothy Sherrill | 2010 | |
58. | Sukhraj Dhillon | 2010 | His book Soul and Reincarnation: What Happens to the Soul at the Time of Death?, has sections on energy science and the soul (Ѻ). |
59. | (c.1968-) | 2011 | “On my better days I regard my wife and daughter as ‘soulless bags of chemicals.’ To be fair though, I think the same of myself and all other forms of life. Souls are supernatural things beyond perception or measure, worthy only of suspended belief pending some real evidence or the giving up of the tenets of science. Chemicals we are…despite the clever animation of flesh and musings of mind brought about by the electricity of life. So why do we think more of ourselves? How are we so offended by these facts?” Bell then followed this up with a YouTube vlog (Ѻ), still shown adjacent , about how his use of the controversial phrase about how he thought of his wife and his daughter as “soulless bags of chemicals”, which he said he heard somewhere, borrowed it, and liked it, but that it sparked a heated reaction and “got under the skin” of many people, no pun intended. |
60. | (1985-2015) | 2014 |