Theist zone

[Captain Scarlet]

@CS- I wasn't retreating behind anything. I was making the point that the irreducible self (the I think therefore I am concept) is in a large part a function of the mind, influenced by physical stimuli and intangible concept, but not dependant on the brain as a sole storage medium. If the brain isn't the storage medium then the medium would have to transcend death. While not necessarily, it is likely to be intangible. That give it 2 qualities; intangible (or transcendent) and immortal. It would also be independent of the mental functions of self but be a part of identity. Therefore to me, part of who I am is based on experiential data, mental constructs and an intangible, irreducible, independent entity I term as a soul. Because of my religious bias I am inclined to also believe in the Holy Spirit, which is similar in makeup and (for all intents and purposes be the same thing). I differentiate the soul and Holy Spirit based on what I deem as contrary to my nature and will to be both independent of myself identity and influencing to my mind from an outward source. I then follow the logical conclusion my bias leads me to that the outside influence is God.

- What leads you to assume that there is a storage mechanism external to the brain?
- What leads you to conclude that this is immaterial?
- How would an immaterial anything interact with a material something?
- If it does interact it must be doing so billions of times a second across the earth in humankind, so why can't we detect its presence?
- Is it present in other animals as well as humankind?
- The view that this is a soul and is the one consistent with xtianity is confirmation bias (as you concede)
- I cannot see the logic that leads you to that conclusion as you have conceded its fallacious (bias on your part)

On the other hand there is a mountain of evidence (which grows daily), which supports the idea that we are probably ONLY material beings and that previously unknown mental events are infact down to brain chemistry, neurons firing/misfiring etc, rather than souls, demonic possession or anything of the sort. The problem with evidence is that its only inductive, but its advantage is that its powerfully persuasive. Substance dualism is not a very prominent theory of the mind anymore for these reasons. Thus far it seems to me that your reasoning amounts to "I believe it, becuase I believe it", it is of course your own choice but lets call it what it is; it definately isn't well thought out [that would be my material brain ;-) doing that], nor backed by evidence.