Clutch

Tercel? Hmm?

To reiterate, in brief:

1. Your claims about the nature of evidence, and about the evidential equivalence of materialism and dualism, are basic errors.

2. Your reasoning about the essential immateriality of mind is exactly the same reasoning used 150 years ago to argue the essential immateriality of life.

3. You fall far short of informedness on both neurology and cognition -- yet, you insist that if you can't see how the former could explain the latter, then it's an a priori truth that it couldn't. Why should any rational interlocutor take such an argument seriously?