Answer To A Response By Someone Whose Pose of Civility Is Eroding Under Testing

If what I said about the Anglo-American atheists' favorite model of human minds is true - and no atheist I've put those problems to has yet proposed a means to overcome the problems with it - then that material-mind can't possibly be true.  The atheist model, practically ubiquitous among so-called neuro- and cognative scientists,  holds that minds and the thoughts they have are the mere product of physical causation rearranging chemicals due to the accidental and ambient physics present in our brains.

If my critique of that idea stands - if they can't come up with a way for the information contained in a thought to be present in a material form to instruct the brain of what to do to make "make" that idea, to instruct it what to make to "be" that idea and HOW to make it BEFORE IT IS PRESENT IN A PHYSICAL FORM IN THE BRAIN TO INSTRUCT IT, their entire model falls.

That is not my fault.  They are the ones who insist on defining thoughts and the minds that think them in a way that can't possibly be true, not me.  And I'm not required to invent a new model to replace it before the impossibility of their model -by its own definitions and holdings -takes itself down.  There is no requirement in logic that the invalidation of a proposal requires a replacement proposal.  True and false isn't dependent on the convenience of those who call what they do "science".   If I'm right in suspecting that minds are immaterial, then science is not applicable.

The human experience of thought, within time, within the experience of human beings of their minds in operation IS AN ESSENTIAL ASPECT OF TESTING ANY MODEL OF THE MIND.   You can't come up with an explanation of a phenomenon which contradicts what is actually going on in that phenomenon and when the phenomeon is "THE MIND" then that experience is the most salient aspect possible about it.  In fact it is the only aspect of it that is absolutely relevant.   Furthermore, the acceptance of any model depends, absolutely, on peoples being convinced that it accounts for their experience of life as they live it and as they experience it.  Anyone who doesn't consult their own experience as a crucial part of acceptance of something are merely resorting to professions of a superficial faith based in the authority of those who make the proposals for it.   The entire method of science, as invented by human beings, is a method for matching proposed ideas to human experience and observation relevant to them.  Atheist-materialists will deny that that's what they do but they do it all the time, they just won't face the fact that it is what they are doing.   The rather savory irony in this is that there are no more obvious violators of the pretended standards of Anglo-American, scientistic, materialist atheism than those very atheists who pretend those are their standards.