What makes up souls

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Lark_Truth
Posts: 212
Joined: December 24th, 2016, 11:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Brandon Sanderson

What makes up souls

Post by Lark_Truth »

What are souls made out of?
We can't see them, we can't study them, a person's soul is practically invisible to whatever science can throw at it. Yet, somehow, we know that we do have souls.
Yes, we have very complex and neatly arranged bodies that support us, but something has to make our minds and bodies tick beyond neural electricity, hormones, and blood flow. The theory that we have souls has been in existence since the beginning of humanity, and it isn't likely to leave either. A soul is yet another part of us, like our brain or our heart, it's just that we can't study it.
So what makes up our souls?

One theory I'd like to put forward is that our souls are made out of what science has termed: "Dark Matter." An unidentified form of matter that scientists are more sure of what it is not than what it actually is. We can't see it, we can't observe it with our current scientific equipment, it appears to make up about 27% of the universe, it doesn't emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation (light, gamma rays, etc.) and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum. It is not anti-matter, scientists are sure of that, just something different.
Let me know your opinions on this. Ta ta!
Truth is Power. Reason is Wisdom. Intelligence is Experience. Hope is Bright!
Fcacciola
Posts: 89
Joined: February 2nd, 2017, 4:32 pm

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Fcacciola »

I could elaborate a response by referencing ideas from a certain personal belief system, but I won't do that since it wouldn't add anything significant and I might as well say that our souls are made of XYZ.
(but I did present some ideas on another post which would give you an answer)

I will, however, say this:

According to this belief system, is not really true that "the soul" is something disconnected from physical things (that is the principle of the so called "substance dualism"). It if were, the soul would have no mechanism to drive you bodily actions.
Is just that different classes of object in reality interact only through whatever mechanisms they do, and the mechanism for the interactions between the class of objects which would correspond to "the soul" (to use your terminology) and the class that would correspond to the so-called "fundamental particles" is yet to be scientifically discovered (but it will).

Just like visible light is a basic, self evident observation of a kind of interaction (between electrons, the electromagnetic field) that we only recently managed to figured out, our "human consciousness" is another basic self evident observation of another kind of interaction (between "the soul" and matter) that we will eventually figure out just the same, and as soon as we start using the right equipment, which is not an EM field detector, or a balance, or thermometer, or a quantum state detector, but our own minds.

Regarding dark matter, there are several theories proposing that it is another indirect observation of the "souls", just like you did, but I'm not that sure.
Dark matter is just an inference out of the unbalance calculated between our models of gravity (general relativity) and the observable cosmos, but as such, dark matter is necessarily subject to gravitation, which is a characteristic that I don't think it necessarily have to be attributed to something like a soul. If it where, then souls would have mass, but if they did, it would be more commonly subject to the other things that occur to massive objects.
But like I said, souls (again to use *your* terminology) are supposed to interact with each other and matter quite differently, which is why we don't find them with conventional equipment.

A similar analysis can be made for Dark Energy.
User avatar
Lark_Truth
Posts: 212
Joined: December 24th, 2016, 11:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Brandon Sanderson

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Lark_Truth »

But then are souls matter? Or are they energy? Well technically all matter is made out of energy, but would a soul be what is constituted as matter?
Truth is Power. Reason is Wisdom. Intelligence is Experience. Hope is Bright!
Philosch
Posts: 429
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 3:42 pm

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Philosch »

Again, this is not a philosophical question. It's equivalent to asking what makes up purple dinosaurs or flying spaghetti monsters. Not appropriate questions on an argumentative philosophy forum. Maybe it could be rephrased to pass muster but I doubt it.
User avatar
Lark_Truth
Posts: 212
Joined: December 24th, 2016, 11:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Brandon Sanderson

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Lark_Truth »

You said before in "Why do people take the Lord's name in vain" that philosophy was "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge," This is not a religious question I am posting. I and others are asking what makes up a soul, which is done in the nature of knowledge, not for religious purposes.
Now if you're going to post, do so in answer to the question.
Truth is Power. Reason is Wisdom. Intelligence is Experience. Hope is Bright!
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Steve3007 »

Lark_Truth:
...Yes, we have very complex and neatly arranged bodies that support us, but something has to make our minds and bodies tick beyond neural electricity, hormones, and blood flow.
One theory I'd like to put forward is that our souls are made out of what science has termed: "Dark Matter."
Given what you've said in the first part that I've quoted here, what you say in the second part seems odd. The first part appears to be an assertion against what is often referred to as materialism. But the second part then proposes that our souls are, in fact, made out of some kind of matter, just a kind that is not yet understood. Why do you feel it is necessary to postulate that the soul is made from an as-yet poorly understood form of matter? This seems to me no different from a person from an earlier age postulating that the soul is made from the as-yet poorly understand phenomenon of electricity. But you have stated that it cannot be made from that.

Why not stick to the dualist position of saying that it is something wholly different from anything that could ever be empirically studied by observation?

Another thought to consider:

What, in your view, is software made from? What are these words that you see here on your screen made from? They're stored on some material computer hardware somewhere. They aren't made from matter, or energy, or dark matter or anything like that. But they aren't separate from that material world either. I'm not necessarily saying that the soul is software. I'm just pointing out that it is possible for something very tangible and real to exist that is not material but is not something separate and distinct from the material world.
User avatar
Cuthbert
New Trial Member
Posts: 15
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 5:09 am

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Cuthbert »

'What are souls made out of?' is a good example of what Ryle called a 'category mistake'. What is the number three made out of? The reason we can't detect souls with 'conventional equipment' is the same reason we cannot smell the unemployment rate. We are mixing up the wrong kinds of thing together. This has nothing to do with the nature of souls and everything to do with how easy it is to get confused when we think abstractly about anything at all.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Steve3007 »

Cuthbert:
What are souls made out of?' is a good example of what Ryle called a 'category mistake'. What is the number three made out of?
Or, as I asked, "what is software made from?".

If you regard Lark_Truth's original question "What are souls made from?" as a category mistake then what you are essentially saying is that you do not agree with the hidden premise of that question - that souls (or software, or mathematical abstractions) can meaningfully be regarded as being made from something in the same sense that we normally use that concept. In everyday speech, the question "what is X made from?" implicitly states, as a premise, that X is something material. By introducing the idea that souls might be made from dark matter, Lark_Truth explicitly says this. You evidently disagree.

The curious idea that there is something called a soul which is subject to some or all of the laws that we normally associate with matter is quite common. There is, for example, the whole "21 grams" idea - the idea that the soul has a property normally associated with matter called mass. There was a poster on here, a long time ago, who took this idea and ran with it. He suggested that disembodied souls wander through space and eventually fall into black holes!
Fcacciola
Posts: 89
Joined: February 2nd, 2017, 4:32 pm

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Fcacciola »

Lark_Truth wrote:But then are souls matter? Or are they energy? Well technically all matter is made out of energy, but would a soul be what is constituted as matter?
The really short answer is that souls are more fundamental than energy and matter, meaning that energy and matter is made of "soul"

For a longer but more precise answer, please read my post here:

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 73#p284473

jump to the part when I said "As for (B.2)"
Spraticus
Posts: 132
Joined: January 29th, 2014, 6:43 pm

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Spraticus »

Lark_Truth wrote:You said before in "Why do people take the Lord's name in vain" that philosophy was "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge," This is not a religious question I am posting. I and others are asking what makes up a soul, which is done in the nature of knowledge, not for religious purposes.
Now if you're going to post, do so in answer to the question.
Nothing makes up an entity that doesn't exist.

-- Updated February 24th, 2017, 11:28 am to add the following --
Lark_Truth wrote:You said before in "Why do people take the Lord's name in vain" that philosophy was "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge," This is not a religious question I am posting. I and others are asking what makes up a soul, which is done in the nature of knowledge, not for religious purposes.
Now if you're going to post, do so in answer to the question.
Nothing makes up an entity that doesn't exist.
Philosch
Posts: 429
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 3:42 pm

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Philosch »

Lark_Truth wrote:You said before in "Why do people take the Lord's name in vain" that philosophy was "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge," This is not a religious question I am posting. I and others are asking what makes up a soul, which is done in the nature of knowledge, not for religious purposes.
Now if you're going to post, do so in answer to the question.
Alrighty then I will answer, souls are figmentations of your imagination and don't exist and therefore the question is not to be taken seriously in an argumentative philosophy forum as posed. If you want to make an argument based on some rational for the existence of souls take a shot?

-- Updated February 24th, 2017, 11:28 pm to add the following --

Just don't assume the existence of a soul is some scientific accepted fact and everyone just accepts such an assumption because it's not and most serious scientists do not. There is zero evidence for the existence of the old idea of a soul.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Consul »

Lark_Truth wrote:What are souls made out of?
We can't see them, we can't study them, a person's soul is practically invisible to whatever science can throw at it. Yet, somehow, we know that we do have souls.
Yes, we have very complex and neatly arranged bodies that support us, but something has to make our minds and bodies tick beyond neural electricity, hormones, and blood flow. The theory that we have souls has been in existence since the beginning of humanity, and it isn't likely to leave either. A soul is yet another part of us, like our brain or our heart, it's just that we can't study it.
So what makes up our souls?

One theory I'd like to put forward is that our souls are made out of what science has termed: "Dark Matter." An unidentified form of matter that scientists are more sure of what it is not than what it actually is. We can't see it, we can't observe it with our current scientific equipment, it appears to make up about 27% of the universe, it doesn't emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation (light, gamma rays, etc.) and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum. It is not anti-matter, scientists are sure of that, just something different.
Let me know your opinions on this. Ta ta!
Material souls made of "dark matter" are as invisible as immaterial souls. The ancient conception of souls is actually materialistic and relevantly different from the Cartesian conception of them. For instance, the "pneuma" postulated by the Stoics is a kind of stuff.
See: Ancient Theories of Soul

"Epicurus is an atomist, and in accordance with his atomism he takes the soul, like everything else that there is except for the void, to be ultimately composed of atoms. Our sources are somewhat unclear as to exactly which kinds of materials he took to be involved in the composition of soul. It is very probable, though, that in addition to some relatively familiar materials — such as fire-like and wind-like stuffs, or rather the atoms making up such stuffs — the soul, on Epicurus' view, also includes, in fact as a key ingredient, atoms of a nameless kind of substance, which is responsible for sense-perception.
...
Stoic physics allows for three different kinds of pneuma (lit. ‘breath’), a breath-like material compound of two of the four Stoic elements, fire and air.
...
Like many (or indeed all) sixth and fifth century thinkers who expressed views on the nature or constitution of the soul, Heraclitus thought that the soul was bodily, but composed of an unusually fine or rare kind of matter, e.g. air or fire. (A possible exception is the Pythagorean Philolaus, who may have held that the soul is an 'attunement' of the body.) The prevalence of the idea that the soul is bodily explains the absence of problems about the relation between soul and body. Soul and body were not thought to be radically different in kind; their difference seemed just to consist in a difference in degree of properties such as fineness and mobility.
...
[T]he first thing that might strike us about the theories of soul adopted by the two dominant Hellenistic schools, Epicurus' Garden and the Stoa, is the doctrine, shared by both, that the soul is corporeal. A number of Stoic arguments for the claim that the soul is a body have come down to us."


"The idea of an immaterial substance, as it is defined by metaphysicians, is intirely a modern thing, and is still unknown to the vulgar. The original, and still prevailing idea concerning a soul or a spirit, is that of a kind of attenuated aerial substance, of a more subtle nature than gross bodies, which have weight, and make a sensible resistance when they are pushed against, or struck at."

(Priestley, Joseph. Disquisitions Relating to Matter and Spirit. 2nd ed. London: J. Johnson, 1782. p. 72)

So there is a materialistic substance dualism, according to which there are both visible bodies made of "coarse" or "thick" matter and invisible souls made of "fine" or "thin" matter.

-- Updated February 25th, 2017, 1:46 am to add the following --
Lark_Truth wrote:But then are souls matter? Or are they energy? Well technically all matter is made out of energy, but would a soul be what is constituted as matter?
The letter m in Einstein's famous equation E = mc2 doesn't stand for matter but for mass; and saying that mass is (equivalent to) energy is not synonymous with saying that matter is (equivalent to) energy. For there is a difference between matter having energy and matter being energy.

The Equivalence of Mass and Energy

-- Updated February 25th, 2017, 1:51 am to add the following --
Lark_Truth wrote:What are souls made out of?
We can't see them, we can't study them, a person's soul is practically invisible to whatever science can throw at it. Yet, somehow, we know that we do have souls.
This statement is certainly question-begging and dependent on what is meant by "to have a soul". If to have a soul is simply to have mental properties, then I agree with you. Anyway, there is a relevant difference between having a soul and being a soul.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Belindi »

Lark_Truth I do fear for you.

You should stop trying to perceive God (and souls) by way of science. Be satisfied with your faith as long as your ethics are sound. Your faith is good for you and you are subjecting it to impossible demands.

I doubt if you know enough science or philosophy to understand that science is not about God and souls. You need to either study some science as a rigorous academic discipline, under the guidance of a qualified teacher, or alternatively you need to accept your faith as faith.
User avatar
Cuthbert
New Trial Member
Posts: 15
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 5:09 am

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Cuthbert »

Steve3007 wrote:Cuthbert:
What are souls made out of?' is a good example of what Ryle called a 'category mistake'. What is the number three made out of?
Or, as I asked, "what is software made from?".

If you regard Lark_Truth's original question "What are souls made from?" as a category mistake then what you are essentially saying is that you do not agree with the hidden premise of that question - that souls (or software, or mathematical abstractions) can meaningfully be regarded as being made from something in the same sense that we normally use that concept. In everyday speech, the question "what is X made from?" implicitly states, as a premise, that X is something material. By introducing the idea that souls might be made from dark matter, Lark_Truth explicitly says this. You evidently disagree.
Yes, that's right. And then I suppose my claim that souls are not material is equally open to question. For one thing, it assumes that there are souls, which in turn is not universally acknowledged.

At least this thread is unpicking the original post into its substantive claims:

(1) There are such things as souls
(2) They are a material substance

It could be that souls are just a manner of speaking. So there are souls in some senses: e.g. when fifty people die in a plane crash then fifty souls are lost. But if that is to say only that the people died then it's just to say that soul = sentient life. And there is sentient life. And it's not made of anything - although the creatures who have sentient life are made of the same stuff that they are made of when they don't have it. Just as the President is made of the same stuff when he ceases to be President. The Presidency is not part of his body.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Consul »

Cuthbert wrote:'What are souls made out of?' is a good example of what Ryle called a 'category mistake'. What is the number three made out of? The reason we can't detect souls with 'conventional equipment' is the same reason we cannot smell the unemployment rate. We are mixing up the wrong kinds of thing together. This has nothing to do with the nature of souls and everything to do with how easy it is to get confused when we think abstractly about anything at all.
If the soul is a (mereologically) simple, partless material or immaterial substance, it isn't made or composed of any smaller things, because it is itself a basic bit of material stuff or "immaterial stuff". (Since "immaterial stuff" seems to be a contradiction in terms like "immaterial matter", the believers in immaterial/spiritual substances should better say they're not made of anything, any stuff.)

Ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurues regarded the soul as a sort of (nonsimple) material substance composed of "soul-atoms".

"In common with other early ancient theories of living things, Democritus seems to have used the term 'psychê' to refer to that distinctive feature of living things that accounts for their ability to perform their life-functions. According to Aristotle, Democritus regarded the soul as composed of one kind of atom, in particular fire atoms."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democritus/

"Having established the physical basis of the world, Epicurus proceeds to explain the nature of the soul (this, at least, is the order in which Lucretius sets things out). This too, of course, consists of atoms: first, there is nothing that is not made up of atoms and void (secondary qualities are simply accidents of the arrangement of atoms), and second, an incorporeal entity could neither act on nor be moved by bodies, as the soul is seen to do (e.g., it is conscious of what happens to the body, and it initiates physical movement). Epicurus maintains that soul atoms are particularly fine and are distributed throughout the body."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/

-- Updated February 25th, 2017, 1:41 pm to add the following --
Consul wrote:If the soul is a (mereologically) simple, partless material or immaterial substance, it isn't made or composed of any smaller things, because it is itself a basic bit of material stuff or "immaterial stuff". (Since "immaterial stuff" seems to be a contradiction in terms like "immaterial matter", the believers in immaterial/spiritual substances should better say they're not made of anything, any stuff.)
Many think (mereological) simplicity (noncomplexity) entails spatial unextendedness, but they are wrong. Simple objects needn't be zero-dimensional; they can well be three-dimensional and have a certain (nonzero) volume. However, this is true only of simple material objects/substances, because simple immaterial objects/substances are spatially unextended, zero-dimensional by definition, having the size of a mathematical point.

As for the outlandish view that we (as subjects/persons) are simple material objects/substances (dwelling somewhere inside nonsimple material objects/sustances called organisms):

"Might You Be a Quite Simple Physical Thing? If So, What Will Become of You?

There are, of course, an extremely great variety of materialist views of ourselves. Among the most incredible of them, there’s the view that each of us sentient beings is, in fact, a basic physical entity without any substantial parts at all. Assuming current physics is correct, a certain specification of this view is that you are a certain electron, for example, and I am certain other electron. In an obvious way, this utterly incredible idea is a terribly extreme view. No doubt, that’s why the view is so terribly incredible. Still, there are several reasons it’s instructive to consider this view, aptly called Extremely Simple Entity Materialism or, for short, Extreme Materialism.

Here is one reason: This Extreme Materialism is the closest materialist analogue of, or parallel to, the most traditional sort of Substantial Dualist View of Ourselves: On a most traditional sort of Substantial Dualism, each of us is a simple immaterial entity, a simple immaterial soul without any substantial parts at all.

On this traditional Dualism, each of us souls will have, of course, quite significant mental powers and propensities. But, as none of us will have any immaterial parts, none of us will have, in any strict or literal sense, any immaterial structure, or any concrete structure at all. Indeed, rather than being derived, at least in part, from how you are structured, how it is that you’re propensitied mentally will be utterly irreducible.
In a nicely noted parallel, on our Extreme Materialist View, each of us is a simple material entity, utterly devoid of any substantial parts at all: On this Extreme Materialism, each of us will have, of course, quite significant mental powers and propensities. But, as none of us will have any material parts, none of us will have, in any strict or literal sense, any material structure, or any concrete structure at all. Indeed, rather than being derived, at least in part, from how you are structured, how it is that you’re propensitied mentally will be utterly irreducible."


(Unger, Peter. Empty Ideas: A Critique of Analytic Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. pp. 208-9)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021