How are Dark Mtter and Consciousness different from Spirit?

[The Grand Nudger]

Aside from the fact that you still haven't given a reason for discrediting the hypothesis, pointing to other hypotheses that are about different things than the current discussion and discrediting them does nothing to further your argument.  It's attacking a straw man at best.

My apologies, I thought I made it obvious.  Soul or spirit -as animating force- does not explain what it purports to describe, and something else, something demonstrable....metabolism, does.  Is there some more complete way that a hypothetical can be discredited?  Not only have the proponents of spirits or souls as such failed to describe how this -would- work to begin with, how spirit would animate, the observation to which it was proposed as a hypothetical has been explained by other, demonstrable, means.  

You feel that I haven't addressed some specific example to which soul or spirit can be raised as a hypothetical, but that doesn't mean I've given you no reason, or that I've pitched an ounce of straw.  You'd simply rather discuss some other type of spirit or soul.  There are many.     

Are you suggesting we are observing consciousness when we observe the metabolism of the brain?  That's a bold claim.  It's too bad you really have nothing to back it up with other than your say so.  I can do that too:   Is not!

Not sure why you'd think I'd suggested that.  I do think we are observing consciousness when we  observe the brain, however.  I see it as direct observation, you might see it as indirect.  I was willing to roll with that, as I made explicit in my comments.  It doesn't matter much to me or my summary of the difference between the three.    

And all of that evidence is inconclusive and largely a product of the interpretation laid upon it.  More "because I said so" evidence.  Simply because you interpret an effect upon consciousness as stemming from the brain does not make it so when the evidence is ambiguous.

You're responding as though I had not simply accepted your comments in their entirety for purpose of conversation.  Read my comment again.  

"All of that evidence" is all I commented upon.  You may think that it does not pass the bar for x (and as I already said, I can run with that), but it remains a fact that for consciousness we have "all of that evidence" and for spirit....we have as yet unspoken hypotheticals and previously discredited hypotheticals.  

You're writing a check that your ego can't cash.  No way can you demonstrate that consciousness is the metabolism of the brain and that's all there is to that.  As far as indirect evidence, the evidence that something is interacting with the brain which is conscious is pretty much the same evidence that points to the brain being the source of consciousness, and that's behavior.  And behavior won't get you to the goal of "it's brain metabolism."  If it had, you would be giving me evidence of this metabolic process called consciousness in the brain instead of distracting with red herrings about prior uses of the word 'spirit'.

The trouble, Jorg, is that you've gone off the rails with the metabolism bit.  I said nothing of the sort.  Now that, lol...is how you pitch straw.  

Prior(and current; some -still- believe it is "soul" or "spirit" that animates us, rather than our metabolism) uses of the spirit/soul hypothetical aren't a distraction, they speak to the OP question.  They just don't interest you, apparently.  So you're 0 for 2 on logical fallacy bingo this post.  Is there some sense or use or meaning under wich the terms spirit or soul seem useful to you, something other than the type of misattribution I've been expressing?  I'm game for that, but what is it?