There is also the issue as to what extent 'soul' can be seen as an independent 'entity' or as a source, especially in relation to individual experiences. This is where the tricky question of individual 'mind' comes in, as opposed to 'soul' as the animating principle.

The idea of a distinct 'soul' goes back to ancient thinking, including the notion of a 'daimon' referred to by Plato. It is here that it is seen as independent, as an entity which may survive death. The relation to ego consciousness is important and may be seen as related to the idea of 'self, which on Buddhism.may be seen as illusory. The idea of independent 'soul' gives rise to the idea of individual immortality vs the nature of soul as an underlying source inherent in birth and rebirth of lifeforms and consciousness..

I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner. I was sleeping.
You all make very good arguments about the soul. And I’m truly sorry I cannot give more detailed answers and arguments... I just don’t know any, I don’t have enough knowledge. I need to study more.

Tom Storm, I will answer your question. The only reason the soul even matters to me is because I want knowledge and understanding of said knowledge. For example, if you were to find a subject you knew nothing about wouldn't you find it interesting to study? wouldn't you want to find people to talk about and share opinions with? That is how I work. I find out a concept exists, then I just... want to learn. Does that make sense?

T Clark, you make a very valid point about how the soul is basically just the body. It's fascinating, really. I have nothing to add since I’m still at my humble beginnings of philosophy and I would still like to learn.

MrLiminal, Interesting theory! I find it fascinating that you say that the soul could just be neuroimaging technology.

Wayfarer, you also make a very valid point. "Animated being" and the word in Greek is "psuche." Essentially meaning "the Mind," and you are the mind. A very good point of view, indeed!

BC, You make a good and logical point of view. just like we cannot allow other to drunk drive, we must also take into consideration others. I agree! I just didn't think of it whilst writing the post. I couldn't remember, but I digress. These are just excuses. You asked me where I got my knowledge from, and that I should keep reading, right? Well, I didn't get my knowledge from reading up until now. I got it from summary videos on philosophy and religion. Oh, and also, I’m planning on reading Philipp Mainländer's works! I really like his nihilistic ideas. I accept your handshake BC, nice to meet you!

Jack Cummins, I believe I have heard of the Greek word "daimon." Is it not the origin of the word "demon?" I believe I read about it in what I believe is a demonolgy forum. I could be wrong, though.

Once again, I’m truly sorry I couldn't give more detailed answers or arguments. I just don't know any.
It's amazing to be surrounded by people who are much smarter than me! It really is humbling.

And if I respond less often, know that it's because I’m either overwhelmed and in a panic attack (due to my anxiety issues) or I’m studying to get a high school diploma, since I’m a high school dropout and I wanna get back into academia.

It's been really awesome meeting you all!

Tom Storm, I will answer your question. The only reason the soul even matters to me is because I want knowledge and understanding of said knowledge. For example, if you were to find a subject you knew nothing about wouldn't you find it interesting to study? wouldn't you want to find people to talk about and share opinions with? That is how I work. I find out a concept exists, then I just... want to learn. Does that make sense? — Null Noir

The world is full of subjects I know nothing about, and that makes no difference to me. But the idea of a soul is hardly just another subject, it's so closely tied to questions of transcendence and meaning that you must be looking for something in particular.

The world is full of subjects I know nothing about, and that makes no difference to me. But the idea of a soul is hardly just another subject, it's so closely tied to questions of transcendence and meaning that you must be looking for something in particular. — Tom Storm

I'll respond while I still can, since I need to study.

I explained to you how I work, my curiosity knows no bounds. And even if I were to explain my mental issues which I was diagnosed with from a very young age, would it really matter? Or would it be against the forum's rules? I believe it wouldn't matter. Since we have such different opinions.

You believe it does not matter either way, which is a valid point and I cannot argue against that. I believe that if a sort of "deity" were to exist, it should at least give us better lives. No wars, no mental issues such as anxiety, no poverty, etc. etc. Maybe they're all part of human life, some might say. But I wouldn't agree.

Still, thank you for being honest in your opinion.

I recommend reading my essay on this topic. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16096/the-origins-and-evolution-of-anthropological-concepts-in-christianity

My understanding of the idea of daimon is of a spiritual power, but it is not the same as demon. I read a book on the topic by Brian Ingliss, 'The Unknown Guest'. It represents a guiding force, or even higher self, which directs one's life.

You believe it does not matter either way, which is a valid point and I cannot argue against that. — Null Noir

Not quite, I said there are many questions that don’t matter, but the question about the soul feels like it’s of a different order, right? I’m mainly here to learn what others believe and why, so if I feel something might be missing, I’ll ask questions to try to get something more substantial. No big deal.

I am taking a short break, because I want to answer honestly and actually engage for at least one more reply. But I have started reading Mainlander.

Astorre, your essay is absolutely amazing. More amazing than any of the answers I have recieved so far. Are you studying theology?

Jack Cummins, What you're describing about "a guiding force" or "the higher self" is a very common view in New Age Spirituality. I’m surprised you even know about the higher self!

Tom Storm, I’m genuinely sorry. I misunderstood. If you want the truth... I’m hoping for a better ending. Not just death and that's it. I want to matter... not to just disappear one day and be forgotten. I don't want my efforts, my wishes, everything I am... to be in vain. That is why I’m so scared of the idea of the soul. That is why I want to know more about it. Yet... even if one religion is right, how would we know which one is the one that's right? Now then, the biggest question for you is here. If God, or any other deity was real, would you be kind to others out of your own accord, or would you do it out of fear? What even is the point of doing something if it is pointless? Do you just do it and die? Do you "create your own purpose?" I have so many questions... yet such a tiny amount of answers. And let's say that the soul is real, that Christianity is the "one true religion," wouldn't you be afraid of... basically anything because you might go to hell? ...That's my honest answer. The one I have been bottling up out of fear.

Astorre, your essay is absolutely amazing. More amazing than any of the answers I have recieved so far. Are you studying theology? — Null Noir

Thank you! I'm studying ontology and phenomenology. This is my first attempt to talk about theology. However, I must admit that I wrote this article based on similar questions that you asked at the beginning of the topic.

If you want the truth... I’m hoping for a better ending. Not just death and that's it. I want to matter... not to just disappear one day and be forgotten. I don't want my efforts, my wishes, everything I am... to be in vain. — Null Noir

That's fair and I'd imagine millions of folk share this view. Thanks for clarifying.

That's my honest answer. The one I have been bottling up out of fear. — Null Noir

Yeah, I'd say fear is a powerful motivator for many beliefs.

If God, or any other deity was real, would you be kind to others out of your own accord, or would you do it out of fear? What even is the point of doing something if it is pointless? — Null Noir

I'm an atheist, and I tend to treat others well and generously because I find it pleasing. Humans are a social species with empathy, and as such, we wouldn't have come very far without cooperation and kindness.

God, for me, has never been a coherent idea or a necessary one. For me the arguments aren't convincing, and I tend to consider theism or atheism to be beyond reasoning and more like a sexual preference, you can't help what you're attracted to. The reasoning being mostly post hoc.

I am taking a short break — Null Noir

Rest well.

Thank you! I'm studying ontology and phenomenology. This is my first attempt to talk about theology. However, I must admit that I wrote this article based on similar questions that you asked at the beginning of the topic. — Astorre

Astorre, I’m going to be honest. You could even write something like a philosophical paper with your knowledge, I believe that something like this could be published in a philosophical journal. Just make sure you cite things properly and double check everything (if you're planning on publishing something like this or if you're taking ontology and penomenology to a masters level or a PhD.)

I would like if we could discuss more things together, especially philosophy! I’m fascinated by your essay and I would like to hear more about your thought process. Would you like to talk sometime? it's alright if you cannot.



Thank you for understanding, Tom. I greatly appreciate it.

I would like if we could discuss more things together, especially philosophy! I’m fascinated by your essay and I would like to hear more about your thought process. Would you like to talk sometime? it's alright if you cannot. — Null Noir

Of course, I'm always open to conversation!

Less that it's the tech itself and more that it lets us see "the soul." Imo the soul is the electrochemical processes happening in your body, making the soul more of an active process than a fully static aspect. Either way, it's an invisible energy that makes you who you are and leaves the body on death. Sounds like what people thought a soul was to me.

My claim was the mind is not a thing. Doesn't mean it's nothing. But it's not a thing, it's not an object. Your 'experience of the mind' is not an experience at all mind is that to whom experiences occur, that which sees objects, and so forth. It is not itself an object. That's one of the things that makes philosophy of mind such a big and elusive topic. — Wayfarer

I don’t know how to deny any of that, but then there is the notion of self-reflection. Experience is what the mind does, and in that sense the mind must be unlike any of the things are experienced. But then, one of the things the mind does is reflect on what the mind does (which is unlike any other things too).

I think philosophy of mind is so elusive because the mind is at once a thing and, not like any of the other things it minds (it thinks about).

They way to experience a mind in the world like we experience other things in the world my be to experience the mind of another person. For some projects we want the minds of certain people, but for other projects, we want other peoples’ minds - these different minds are real objects distinguishable because of real experiences. And we get real results from our awareness of different minds as if they were different things.

So maybe mind or soul, to be a thing, must be bound up in a community that helps carve out and distinguish all of the different minds as now things to be experienced like other things are experienced.

I self-reflect and can find my mind needs the help of other people to figure something out, or I find my mind is sufficient to figure out this other problem.

So mind is like a thing, but not like a thing, at that same time.

But the positive contribution here is that, in order to discuss what a mind is, the notion of reflection has to be incorporated. There is something unique going on that is mind, and in every mental happening, there is a reflection involved.

Let’s pretend the mind is muscle, or a thing. When the mind does its thing I think it simultaneously does two things - it spins itself up into existence, and it fills itself up with what it is minding (thinking). So the function of mind is to self-animate, and at the same time, self-animate for a purpose or with something in mind.

This is just a theory I throw out there to hopefully make this discussion more frustrating and complex and raise more questions than answers. :grin:



I know you asked about the soul and not the mind. Soul to me is a word used as a unifying principle to integrate everything about your personhood. (What is that?). Meaning it’s like your living personality, which includes your emotions and passions and dislikes and physicality/body, and intellect and will and heart and mind - soul is all of you that matters to yourself and to anyone. Any changes made to who and what you are, are changes made to your soul, or in your soul, o by your soul. Your soul shapes your body while your body shapes your soul because you are neither of these alone both both of them at once - you are living a particular life, and that particularity is of your unique soul.

So animating principle (psuche) is a type of unifying principle. Your soul is you living, what moves you and you moving whatever you move. Soul is what is loved most in other people, and it is what enables people to love.

Other Greek words are helpful - there is nous or “mind” which is more tied to knowing and thinking (I believe), and there is daemon (from which we get demon) which is more tied to like a Freudian id, or underlying impulse and sub-conscious passion (I think).

This raises the notion of consciousness. All animals with senses display a type of conscious awareness. People are aware of their consciousness - so what appears unique to me about people is that consciousness itself is an object of human consciousness (we notice the subjectivity of others and ourselves), but other animals don’t do this (not like people do).

And this, I think, raises the fact that language itself is tied up in the soul or mind. There is something going on with the fact that only human beings, the ones who can wonder and do wonder about minds and souls, have true language. A word is a thing that reflects something else; it represents something else; it points to what the word means or names or is is used to say. So like the mind is reflection, the words the mind uses to organize its thinking, are never alone in themselves but referential and reflective of things. @Wayfarer Words, like minds, are not things. And Language is tied up in Logos (the word) which is the root of logic, which we have been using all along here to read to this post. Words only present their souls (to speak metaphorically), their meanings, in a mind. My dog doesn’t see this post has any different meaning than your original post or anyone else’s post, because my dog’s “mind” may not be a true proper reflecting mind at all.

And @Null Noir, I agree I want all of this to matter. I cannot pretend that any meaning I make for myself actually matters to me. It just sucks all the soul out of these discussions to think no one need care about anything I think, about my life. I don’t know why I would care about other people’s lives if they had no reason to care about mine, because I had no reason to care about mine, other than as a distraction from this whole question.

I’m not afraid of death - I won’t be dissappointed because when I die, I either won’t know it (because I’ll never dead) or I will learn I have been saved somehow from death.

But I believe my life matters to God. And I agree that without something more to life than birth to death, there is no real meaning to this thing. We might enjoy it anyway, but that doesn’t make it meaningful, just enjoyable. But it is because my life is enjoyable to God and other people, that it can be said to be objectively, truly good. Not because I like myself, but because am likable at all as proven because I am liked by others.

So in the end, you are meaningful, whether that means something to you or not. I hope it does.

you make a very valid point about how the soul is basically just the body. — Null Noir

I said the soul, as I see it, arose from the body. I didn’t say it is the body or is the same as the body. Those are completely different things, which we don’t need to go into here unless you want to.

It's fascinating, really. I have nothing to add since I’m still at my humble beginnings of philosophy and I would still like to learn. — Null Noir

As I noted in my post, the central issue you’ve raised is known as the mind-body problem - how does the soul or consciousness influence, operate, the body. It’s one of the biggest ongoing arguments in philosophy. I suggest you do a little reading on that. Look it up in Wikipedia or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

It represents a guiding force, or even higher self, which directs one's life. — Jack Cummins

Holy shit, can you fire your daimon and get a new one? If that's their job, my daimon needs retraining.

I know what you mean, as my path in life has gone a bit weird. The issue may not be the daimon as such but what we need to learn in life. I have a mixture of unpleasant and pleasant synchronicities, which seem more than coincidences.

One which I had which felt like a miracle. I was travelling home a week ago and found I had lost my keys. I retraced the places I had been, making enquiries and at the main place where I had spent my time it was not found. However, the cleaner there told mr that she had seen a key on a keyring with a small teddy attached in the street and was able to direct me to the place where it was.

I have a lot of strange synchronicities involving losing keys and other items. Some would see these as mere coincidental accidents. However, coming from a Junian slant I interpret them symbolically. I also feel that my daimon is involved in providing learning lessons from my 'shadow', or dark side. I also feel that I get a lot of 'Instant Karma', especially when I make mistaken choices. Of course, I am aware that this is my own subjective interpretation of experiences.

Appropriate it's called a daimon because my path in life has been hell, lol.

It is a matter of fact that the mind is not an object in any sense other than the metaphorical, such as ‘the object of the argument’, ‘the object of the question’. — Wayfarer

I agree it’s not an object, but it is a thing. Now you and I will probably get in an argument about whether a thing has to be an object - something physical. I say, “of course not.” if you look at various dictionaries, there is some ambiguity, but there is a general acknowledgment that a thing does not have to be a physical entity.

Lao Tzu and I agree - anything that can be named is a thing.

This is almost certainly wrong, but my current formulation as a panpsychist (and if I want to try to make sense of the word 'soul') is this:

A soul is a zone of conscious space that identifies with the body that occupies it.

Or possibly:

A soul is the substance that constitutes a body, conceived of as substance and not body

And if I respond less often, know that it's because I’m either overwhelmed and in a panic attack (due to my anxiety issues) or I’m studying to get a high school diploma, since I’m a high school dropout and I wanna get back into academia. — Null Noir

Your desire to get a HS diploma (and more) is excellent. Full speed ahead!

I didn't get my knowledge from reading up until now. I got it from summary videos on philosophy and religion. — Null Noir

No need to apologize for learning from videos on philosophy and religion.

Many of the participants in this forum are middle aged or elderly; I'm 78. We've had many decades to accumulate information, misinformation, knowledge, errors, etc. It didn't happen overnight. When I was in high school, there was no internet, no videos; maybe an educational film every now and then. Maybe a vinyl record. it was mostly print or nothing. One went to the library. "Media instruction" started taking off in the 1970s with audio tape and cassettes, limited computer time sharing, slide/tape programs, and some video along with film. The personal computer and the Internet were a huge advance in the 1990s and 2000s.

The Internet, podcasts, videos, digital books, public television -- all that -- are wonderful assets. I learned a lot by watching NOVA and Nature on television. There's nothing wrong with a good summary book, every now and then. I've noticed that Amazon has some summary books for popular but difficult texts. NOBODY ever has time to read everything, or watch every program.

If you are having panic attacks, I hope you are getting care for those. Anxiety or depression are tough to deal with.

But the positive contribution here is that, in order to discuss what a mind is, the notion of reflection has to be incorporated. There is something unique going on that is mind, and in every mental happening, there is a reflection involved. — Fire Ologist

Plainly I can think about my mind, or mind in general. I can reflect on my inner states and those that others must have. But that doesn’t undermine the point that the mind is not an object, except for in the metaphorical sense of it being an ‘object of thought’ - but then, that applies to anything we think about. The second point is reflexivity, that the mind is that which thinks, not itself an object. There is a metaphor in the Indian texts, 'It is never seen but is the seer; it is never heard but is the hearer; it is never thought of but is the thinker; it is never known but is the knower'. I think this is an elementary fact, and that the unknowable nature of mind is something it is important to acknowledge and be aware of. In other words, recognizing the mind’s unknowable nature—its status as that which knows, rather than something known—is to recognize the ground of experience, the source from which knowledge arises. To mistake it for an object among objects is to lose sight of the subjectivity that makes knowledge possible in the first place.

I think the primeval idea of "soul" is most rationally conceived of as conatus¹, even though the latter is, like life itself, impersonal and ontological-immanent (re: natura) whereas the former tends to be personal yet spiritual-transcendent (re: supernatura).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conatus#In_Spinoza's_philosophy [1]

I have just read the link on contatus and definitely see immanence as important as opposed to 'supernatural'. However, I am not sure that the idea of spirit can be disregarded completely in thinking about the idea of soul. Hegel saw spirit as being imminent in history and in his understanding of 'mind'.

The question of an 'out there' impersonal force is also conceived in varying ways. Spinoza was from a Jewish background. In Judaism there was an emphasis on a personal relationship with 'God', via the soul. So, he may be seen as challenging this. The idea of an objective God or 'divine' aspect of God does not rule out the existence of human beings tuning into nature itself through establishing some connection with cosmic consciousness. In this respect, the idea of 'God' can be seen as a metaphorical description.

The issue of the soul may be about seeing spirituality as being about inner reality as opposed to the concrete objective realm which can be measured by empirical science. It comes back to the dialogue between mythos and logos. Logos may point to rational understanding, including neuroscience as the physical wiring of how mind or soul work, but the numinous dimension is about the experiential nature of inner reality.

An object, exists.
An object has an ontology.

The mind knows objects, so it makes sense to say the mind is therefore other than objects; the mind is not an object but an objectifier of sorts.

But holding that thought, could the mind be a different type of object?

'It is never seen but is the seer; it is never heard but is the hearer; it is never thought of but is the thinker; it is never known but is the knower'. — Wayfarer

I think the above mystical quote is more about epistemology than it is ontology. It is both. But the ultimate point may be that when we take the mind as an object, we have to actually make something other than a mind to retake as an object, so that we might know the mind indirectly. (Like we know all things indirectly. — epistemology…).

the unknowable nature of mind is something it is important to acknowledge and be aware of — Wayfarer

If you read this all together it makes sense. If you break it into parts, it becomes impossible to form a single sentence out of it.

You said “mind is something”. In order to show mind is not some thing.
You said it is an “unknowable” something, and that this unknowable nature must be “acknowledged”.

This reflexivity about impossibility is ubiquitous when speaking about the mind. Acknowledging something about the unknowable, with the mind, that is that same unknowable thing, and with the mind that is not a “the X”.

It makes it impossible to speak of without mystical non-linear reasoning. Or metaphor.

Mind is like an unmoved mover; once we say something about it, we’ve made a move, and so moved away from it.

You’ve heard it said that thoughts are in the mind - well I say it is the same thing to say that the mind is constructed by its thoughts.

To say the mind is empty is the same thing as to say there is no mind whatsoever.

It could be said that the mind is where knowledge resides. It can equally be said that the object that is known is where the knowledge was drawn from by the mind. Knowledge, in the mind, is always knowledge of something that is not the mind. (This is why knowledge of the knower is so elusive.)

Like looking in a mirror - we see it is us, as it is a reflection from us, as so it is not us, but it is a reflection of us. So not one of these, without all of these.

I find it is just as hard to accept both or either truths: that the mind is not an object, and the mind is an object. Because the mind is the object that is

the ground of experience, — Wayfarer

So I don’t want to disagree with anything you said about mind; I think, mysteriously, maybe paradoxically, I want to add knowledge of the mind that somehow there is an object there when the mind is being a thinking mind.

It’s like you have to know both that thinking itself is never an object of thought itself, but also, like Parmenides would say “it is the same thing to think as it is to be” such that thinking is the only object.

Ontology and epistemology overlap in the act that is mind.

Overlapping is like reflection.

Reflection is the best single noun.
Because reflection is many moving (conjugating) parts, but one part.

I say these things hoping better minds can make use of them.

the source from which knowledge arises. To mistake it for an object among objects is to lose sight of the subjectivity that makes knowledge possible in the first place. — Wayfarer

Does, per Kant, knowledge only arise because of the mind? Isn’t is also knowledge of some thing? Admittedly that thing is first shaped by my senses and by the conditions of experience, but it is still an experience of some thing (not pure idealism - in which mind is the only thing).

I think that it is right that calling a mind a thing is to lose sight of subjectivity. But that is the thing about the kind. It is like a mirror but a near letter t mirror, meaning when one looks at oneself, when the mind reflects its contents, the mind sees both the contents and itself, like looking in a window and seeing yourself on the other side as if it was a mirror.

The mind is both subject and object, when the mind thinks about itself.

It is not perfect - we don’t know ourselves completely. But we know some thing when we know our own minds.

Does, per Kant, knowledge only arise because of the mind? Isn’t is also knowledge of some thing? — Fire Ologist

Mind is the faculty of knowledge. Consciousness is always consciousness of... which was one of the basic observation of phenomenology. (However Indian philosophy also understands states of 'contentless consciousness' arising through dhyana (meditation)).

The point I was making was in response to the question 'what kind of thing is the soul (mind)?' which I say is a nonsensical question. Soul or mind is 'that which knows'.

The passage I mentioned from the Upaniṣads (philosophical scriptures of Vedanta) elaborates on this in vivid terms.

The subject of the dialogue is the nature of Ātman (Sanskrit): commonly translated as soul or self, Ātman is the innermost essence or enduring subject of experience. In many Indian traditions, especially Vedānta, it refers to the true self, distinct from the body, mind, and ego. Unlike the Western notion of an immortal individual soul (e.g., in Christian theology), ātman is often conceived as identical with (Advaita Vedānta) or ultimately unified in (qualified or dualistic Vedānta) Brahman, the ground of Being.

Below is an edited excerpt from a dialogue between the sage Yajnavalkya who is the principal voice in the Upaniṣad, and a questioner, who is trying to elicit information about the ātman.

You have only told me, this is your inner Self in the same way as people would say, 'this is a cow, this is a horse', etc. That is not a real definition. Merely saying, 'this is that' is not a definition. I want an actual description of what this internal Self is. Please give that description and do not simply say, 'this is that'. Yājñavalkya says: "You tell me that I have to point out the Self as if it is a cow or a horse. Not possible! It is not an object like a horse or a cow. I cannot say, 'here is the Ātman; here is the Self'. It is not possible because you cannot see the seer of seeing. The seer can see that which is other than the Seer, or the act of seeing. An object outside the seer can be beheld by the seer. How can the seer see himself? How is it possible? You cannot see the seer of seeing. You cannot hear the hearer of hearing. You cannot think the Thinker of thinking. You cannot understand the Understander of understanding. That is the Ātman."

Nobody can know the Ātman inasmuch as the Ātman is the Knower of all things. So, no question regarding the Ātman can be put, such as "What is the Ātman?' 'Show it to me', etc. You cannot show the Ātman because the Shower is the Ātman; the Experiencer is the Ātman; the Seer is the Ātman; the Functioner in every respect through the senses or the mind or the intellect is the Ātman. As the basic Residue of Reality in every individual is the Ātman, how can we go behind It and say, 'This is the Ātman?' Therefore, the question is impertinent and inadmissible. The reason is clear. It is the Self. It is not an object.

Ato'nyad ārtam: "Everything other than the Ātman is stupid; it is useless; it is good for nothing; it has no value; it is lifeless. Everything assumes a meaning because of the operation of this Ātman in everything. Minus that, nothing has any sense". Then Uṣasta Cākrāyana, the questioner kept quiet. He understood the point and did not speak further. — Brihadaranyaka Upaniṣad trs Swami Krishnananda

This is why, in this tradition, asking what kind of thing the ātman or soul is, amounts to a category error. It is not a thing among things, but that in virtue of which anything appears as a thing at all.

I am not disagreeing with you or with the excerpt.

This is a language problem, not a misconstruing of what things are (and what things are not).

We should not say “the” mind.

We should say “minding” as a verb, or gerund.

The saying “make up your mind” is when or how (not what) a mind is.

Mind comes to be, thinking about.

See the seer of seeing.

Mind the minder of minding.

We cannot do it, yet here we are doing it.

Mind, as thing, is paradox. Impossible, in the act of constructing this impossibility.

I am not sure that the idea of spirit can be disregarded completely in thinking about the idea of soul. — Jack Cummins

Like Spinoza, I "disregard" body-mind (i.e. matter-spirit) substance duality. Conatus is inherent in nature – this worldly – ontologically immanent (Deleuze).

Hegel saw spirit as being imminent in history and in his understanding of 'mind'.

By geist, Hegel means 'cultural and social development, or process, of humanity's self-consciousness' (e.g. weltgeist ... volkgeist ... zeitgeist).

Since you're looking for different perspectives on the soul here is mine. An welcome to the forum fellow spark.

Question 1: "If there is such a thing as a "soul," where did it come from? Did God or any other diety create it?"

A "soul" is an information pattern that persists beyond the body. By "persist beyond the body", i do not necessarily mean that the soul survives the death of the body, though it can in certain circumstances.

Here’s what i mean: Your biological body replaces its cells periodically. Over a period of seven to eight years, almost all the cells in your body have been replaced, yet you still perceive yourself as the same person you were eight years ago. The substance of your body may change, but the "soul", your information pattern, persists in continuity. Reflecting on the Ship of Theseus can help gain a deeper understanding of this principle.

Question 2:
A) "If there is a "soul" inside your body, is it seperate from you or is it the same as you?"

The connection between the body and the soul is a bit nuanced. In reality, a soul cannot exist without a body, but it is not necessarily tied to a single body. A soul can be translated into another body, but this must be done in a very specific and careful way to maintain conscious continuity; otherwise, the soul can become damaged or even destroyed. So, in one sense, your body and soul are one, but in another sense, they are not.

B) "In other words, who is in control of the body? Is it like a "Player vs. Vessel" situation as we see in the games created by Toby Fox (Undertale and Deltarune)? "Are you truly in control of yourself?" is the question I am trying to ask, I suppose."

The answer to this question enters into free will territory, and i would prefer to decline the opportunity to speak on that subject at this time.

C) "And let's say hypothetically, that Christianity is true, would that mean that You would go to Heaven, or "you," the soul? Since those are two separate things."

If Christianity were true, then going to heaven would entail a transformation of the body, which i would interpret as translating the soul into another operational substrate; a body that more permanently preserves your information pattern, protected from external entropy. One could think of heaven as a kind of "virtual reality" where a soul (information pattern) can exist and function in optimally enhanced ways: deathless, and coterminous with the universe, or at least while the physical substrate or system that runs the "virtual reality" remains operational.

Question 3: "If the soul is seperate from the body, why even bother to be a good person? You wouldn't even go to Heaven, your SOUL would. Would you even bother to be a good person?"

I won't address the issue of being a "good person", because both good and bad people have souls that operate in the same way. A bad person can enter heaven (a kind of virtual reality) just as easily as a good person can. The question is whether God lets you in or not, but there is no intrinsic difference between the souls and their ability to inhabit heaven.

Consider this analogy: Think of your body as a car, and the driver as the soul. Suppose you have a red car and you like to speed and run red lights. What will happen is that you will receive tickets, develop a bad driving record, and face higher insurance rates. Even if you get a different car, now blue, your bad driving record follows you, even in the new car or body. What you do with your body affects how your soul develops.

So, in the context of your question, even if your current body does not go to heaven, the consequences of what you did while in that body will remain with your soul and may influence your entry into heaven. One is not the body; one is the soul and the soul is the psyche or mind.

Question 4: If the soul and the body are one and the same, how would that even work? Is it something akin to "you are the soul piloting a human body" type situation, like some spiritual people say?

I believe my replies to your other questions sufficiently answer this one.

Your biological body replaces its cells periodically. Over a period of seven to eight years, almost all the cells in your body have been replaced, yet you still perceive yourself as the same person you were eight years ago. — punos

This is not an accurate description in the case of neurons, many of which persist from birth:

https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/public-education/brain-basics/brain-basics-life-and-death-neuron