Glen:

The rub lies in the fact that we know the brain is essential for sentience ... meaningful life, yet we know absolutely nothing of the soul - even if such a critter exists - regardless of contentions to the contrary. So, while I would prefer to protect my possibility of retaining sentient life, as I know it, I wouldn't care much about my body without my brain (unless, of course there was the possibility they could be reunited at some future point in this life.

You have to understand, someone who has no belief in the "soul" as the concept is generally perceived (as transcending the body after death, etc.) finds it fool-hearty to engage in the ethereal musings w.r.t. dissection of the soul, etc. Many who do entertain the notion of a soul somewhat equate it with the mind in a general way. However, it is my thinking that the mind (i.e., our sentience) is a factor of a gestalt effect of so many neurons firing and the massive amount of information being addressed by different parts of the brain. Much of psychoses has recently been attributed to damaged synapse functionality so that the normal filtering of sensory stimuli is impaired and there no longer a sensible interpretation by the brain when it "hears" all kinds of sound input, yet lacks the normal filtration system/ability. Imagine the confusion when some components of the brain fail and it is overwhelmed by sensory stimuli without a means of making sense of such ... nuts in a hand bag! So, to me, the mind is only extant in man (and perhaps a few other critters with highly developed brains) because of the enormous about of information able to be processed by the various components of the brain. It is debatable, to me, whether a human brain, sequestered (but "alive") from all social and sensory stimuli from birth (consider the brain does not perceive pain itself)would be a sentient enterprise. Actually, I think it would not be. However, an "experienced" brain kept "alive" but then sequestered, might very well retain sentience. Musings about splitting of a soul or what would happen to one when a brain is dissected, to me, is tantamount to the hypothetical (and to me nonsensical) musing as per whether or not God could create a stone which he was incapable of lifting... essentially, childish banter. Again, it is the only the Gestalt effect of the hyper communications system going on in the brain that affords our sentience or mind, to my thinking (and that seems to be the growing consensus of experts in the field. There seems to be a certain point where there is enough informational exchange such that there is a sense of self-recognition and purposeful thinking extant.

There is plenty of nonsensical entertainment if one has the time or desire, but with no evidence of a soul, why create straw men, I say. I seems much more productive to work at understanding the mind/psyche (how it works and can be kept healthy)than to delve into any hypothetical and very unlikely mystical components. There is too much work to be done on this planet for mankind to survive so one shouldn't get too ethereal about any possibility of life after death. No one can prove there isn't, but neither can one prove we are not a figment of another's imagination. I say, deal with what we can know and expand on it, making the best of it. Otherwise, we may, say, become lost in group insanities such as the ones now plaguing the planet, where groups kill groups with one or another's god/ideology marching beside them. I'd like to think we learn from holocausts such as the Crusades and other fanatic ideologies. There would be no point in me arguing with an Apocalyptic fundamentalist (no, I'm not implying you are one, just using it as an example). The are not respectful of my reasoning, and I am not respectful of their fanciful mysticism. However, I could abstain and let them believe what they "must," if they were not intent/insistent on converting, enslaving, or destroying non-believers. It would seem they have little choice on continuing that rampage, lest they become cheery-pickers of their creed, which some of the moderates have been able to do. Personally, I think mysticism will eventually give way rationalism ... if mankind can survive the interim.

"I don't believe the soul is limited to the heart, or brain, or any one part of the body. But more of a LIFE FORCE. When you die there is no need for the LIFE FORCE in a dead body, so it goes back to god. God being the ultimate LIFE FORCE. That works for me." Then either of the scenerios I mentioned would be quite a dilemma for you. Worse, if you were the person who had to decide for someone else. Worse yet, if a religious fanatic like you had to decide for me. Some of the reasons I posed the questions to begin with.

"I don't believe the soul is limited to the heart, or brain, or any one part of the body. But more of a LIFE FORCE. When you die there is no need for the LIFE FORCE in a dead body, so it goes back to god. God being the ultimate LIFE FORCE. That works for me." Are you saying you wouldn't act on your beliefs? You would completely ignore them? Please. I think you would act as you believe and your beliefs have no scientific basis, that is why I consider them fanatical. Of course, you don't.