My soul is on a train, baby, a train with a one-way ticket straight to your heart.
[motions to my chest] It’s kind of in here. And when you sneeze, that’s your soul trying to escape. Saying “God bless you” crams it back in! And when you die, it squirms out and flies away. And if you die in a submarine at the bottom of the ocean, it can swim. It’s even got wheels in case you die in the desert and it has to drive to the cemetery.
Isabelle
Have you ever heard of the Book of Life? I can’t say that I’m in total agreement with your definition of one’s soul (i.e., is the sum total, of all you are). What then, is your spirit?
The current understanding that I hold is that your spirit (energy, life) is from God, of God Himself. The soul is the sum total of your thoughts, actions and experiences recorded, like a page of a journal.
I have been reading and considering this Food for Thought. I think you may find this very interesting.
There are few references in the Bible concerning the Book of Life, but here is one in which I find similarities with the view I hold, to my surprise.
I don’t know where or how the spirit resides in relation to our material bodies. It’s something I’ve wondered about now and then, but not something high on my priority list on gaining understanding of.
flonks, I’ve read before what you are speaking of and have found it very interesting. I keep an open mind because I doubt that many, if any, know all of God’s creation.
I have nothing more than my own mild imagination to back this up, but I have often thought that perhaps a person’s soul (oif such exists) is analogous to a groove worn in the fabric of reality by the running water of our conscious existence, so that after we’re gone, the groove describes the same pattern as the object that made it.
Perhaps it is Mangetout. And, maybe it’s not imagination, but a memory. 
Well, I tend to use a computer hardware/software analogy to view the soul. One’s soul is the software, a person’s personality, memories, ect., while the brain is the hardware that the soul runs on. Now, if you do something funky to the hardware (i.e. get drunk), naturaly its not going to run your software properly.
And if you destroy the computer?
I think that basing a philosophy on the extremely dubious idea that something without form or substance can posess any attributes at all, let alone the incredible attributes some assign to it, was the silliest concept that ever sprang from the mind of man.
IMHO, of course.
Well, thank you Czarcasm for the purely materialistic viewpoint. What would a threat about spirituality be without it?
A bunch of unprovable opinions?
A lot of internally-inconsistent gobbeldy-dook?
Wishful thinking?
Yes, it would be wishful thinking that the materialistic view would actually add to this discussion or any like it.
Sorry about the slip of the finger. 
Meant to say thread, not threat.
In the pineal gland, of course, right next to the mind, René Descartes, and a gaggle of homunculi.
[ul] [sup]I left mine in SF[/sup]
:o [sup]Oh, sorry that was my heart.[/sup][/ul]
But the sum total of all your are includes your body. Does that mean that your physical body is part of your soul?
I’ll state right off the bat that I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as a soul. It’s a concept that is used to explain how someone can have life after death, even though the body will clearly be destroyed. I don’t believe in life after death, either, and thus I have no reason to believe in souls.
However, assuming for a moment that souls are real, who says that they have to be in your body at all? They could be floating around your body, or hanging out at an island in the Caribbean and interacting with your body via some sort of spiritual remote control. They could even be in another dimension or something.
When you propose an entity that would seem to have no detectable purpose, and cannot be measured, then you can postulate anything you want to about its location.
If you’re donating your heart to another person, you’re already dead, and thus (according to your particular mythology) your soul will be in heaven, and not hanging around with the lump of flesh that used to be your heart.
I’ve heard people say this before, but I think the distinction is illusory. I think most people in this type of discussion use ‘mind’ to talk about the functions of the cerebrum, which is most certainly part of your brain. In any case we’re talking about something that’s clearly physical. I don’t know if the soul is the single silliest concept people have ever invented - I think there are some related concepts that are equally silly - but I agree with Czarcasm in general anyway. Doesn’t seem to me that anyone’s posted anything here regarding a soul that falls outside the realm of wishful thinking.
Personally, I make a distinction between “brain” and “mind” such that the information stored in the brain, the patterns of neuron interaction if you will, would be labled as “the mind”, while the collection of neurons themselves would be “the brain”.
Under my definition, one could run a perfect simulation of your brain on a computer, and your mind would be there. Not a simulated mind, but the real thing. True, it’d be a copy of your original mind, but I would classify it as being you, as opposed to being simply a simulation of you.
So, if anything in the human body could be called a soul, it would have to be the pattern of information that makes up the mind.
If calling the mind ‘the pattern of information that makes up the mind’ isn’t redundant, I would think calling the information within the mind ‘the soul’ is definitely redundant. You don’t need that many names for the same thing.
In any case, the brain (or mind) and the information stored within it is corporeal. The soul, by definition, is not. Thus it’s not right to call those things the soul- they’re what people might interpret (or choose to interpret) as the soul, but that doesn’t mean that’s what it really is.