How are Dark Mtter and Consciousness different from Spirit?

[Angrboda]

Yes, but why is it discredited?

I suppose we could count the ways off? We could begin with perhaps the earliest and most primitive conception of spirit or soul as the "animating force or substance" - which turned out to be, rather than spirit, metabolism.  Simple mis-attribution.  I'm sure you could contribute.  What other things were attributed to spirit or soul, that the answer "soul or spirit" was proposed as a hypothetical in reference to?  

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.

Saying that it is discredited without giving a reason why is just an argument from consensus.  And I would have to disagree with your assertion about consciousness.  If by observed we mean witnessed by our perceptual systems, consciousness as a brain process has never been observed directly.

What do you think we're watching when we watch the brain work?  Nevertheless, I think that a more direct observation would be that which you experience with regards to your own.  Take it either way you like., or, if you prefer leave it...we'll consider consciousness to be indirectly observed.

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!

 That places the hypothesis that consciousness is a brain process in the same category as the explanations that involve dark matter. There is indirect evidence, but no direct observation.  

Taking all of this on it's face and arguing nothing, then within that category consciousness would still rank considerably higher.  We have a far greater weight and volume of indirect evidence for consciousness....than for dark matter

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.

  Which is the same situation in which the hypothesis about spirits and souls is in — there is indirect evidence but no direct observation.  So your tripartite scheme collapses into itself.

Would you share some of this indirect evidence for spirits and souls?  Metabolism, "the animating force"  is out, I see you mentioned that consciousness might be such evidence.  So, "the thinking stuff"?   Seems to me to be another example of metabolism, of mis-attribution.

I wonder what soul or spirit would be taken to mean in the absence of animating forces or consciousness?  What's next on the list of things that spirit might be or do if the latter is removed as was the former?

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'.