Bitoku wrote:
I just wanted to point out how it isn't applicable to expect a physical scientific explanation for something non-physical.
You really only gave an assertion though based upon the assumption that science is intrinsically methodologically naturalistic. I don't have to agree that science actually IS intrinsically methodologically naturalistic though, and causal models including issues of falsifiability don't intrinsically require that they are applied to physical or non-physical things.
In any causal model though, binary's not out of his right to want something like a scientific model. It's entirely reasonable for him to ask how this idea fits into the scientific realities we are aware of and how this idea is a necessary one to explain certain cognitive functions. Also, it's entirely reasonable for him to wonder what additional findings about the world may end up making your metaphysical assertion seem like a questionable affair. As if we're talking about the empirical workings of the brain, then as a matter of empirics it seems like naturalism could still logically be a contender, or at least your model of non-physical interaction be shown highly doubtful.
Quote:
Having said that, my explanation of it would be that our physical brain is influenced by the non-physical aspect of our identity (call it spirit, soul, or whatever). Our brain then operates to control our purely physical body. So basically the brain would be acting as a necessary transmitter between the non-physical (spirit) and physical (body) aspects of ourselves.
What does "influenced" mean in this case? How does "influence" work? How does the communication between both sides work? I mean, it's questionable to say "Oh, magic stuff does this!" because you're vague on everything. How does it work? Why does it work this way? Is it required by Occam's razor?