This wasn't actually meant as an attack, but it served as a use case. This is a genuine attempt at understanding and I think this simple statement captures more of human nature and the "(magical) essence" that we like to attribute to the soul.

However, the leads up to this reach back 30+ years. For example, I've wondered for a long while, how much of what we see when looking at a person's face are the factual matters: position of lips, skin, folds, position of eyes. And how much is interpretation of emotion: muscle movement as the laugh or frown is shaped. Simply the change of facial expression betrays hints of 'disgust' or 'surprise'. So if, for example, only 40% is factual, then the rest is (strictly?) bound to interpretation. However, if done correctly, does reveal a lot of what exactly is 'the attitude in an encounter'. Ironically, we sometimes claim to see people's soul in their eyes. I think this definition captures so much of what we want the 'soul' to be or expect it is without any undefined excesses parts.

A simple definition of an intangible concept.