All the cell-phone analogy shows is that it's possible to imagine that some mental activity is really transmitted from elsewhere.

But we already knew that was possible to imagine: that's why we're having this conversation.

What's more, we know from experience that phone calls *don't* originate within the phone. We don't know that about any kind of brain activity. In fact experience (all experiments in this case) suggests just the opposite. Belief in transmission from elsewhere was more justifiable, merely as a hypothesis, before brain experiments were possible.

The only "evidence" so far that any mental activity originates from some non-material source outside the body is the brain's proven, ancient ability to imagine that that's the case. But the brain can imagine lots of untrue things. And has. Mine does it every day.

Mrrzy's question is crucial. The material evidence is not only evidence *for* a material explanation, it's also evidence *against* non-material explanations. Where is the non-material evidence - other than feelings - to counterbalance and contradict it?

I'm not saying that a non-material influence is logically impossible, only that there's no objective reason to believe in one. If believing in one makes a person feel better, that's a good thing. If it makes a person do objectionable or dangerous things, like hating people or blowing himself up, that's different.