just saying it isn't as reasonable to go with that interpretation than to go with the more likely one.

There are two reasons.

One is that the large collection of anecdotal evidence indicative of a spiritual beingness which transcends material form is often persuasive even if not scientific enough for a medical journal, and often includes knowing of past or remote things that are difficult to explain, and constitute anomalies against the standard brain-is-self model.

The second is that the limitation of selfhood to the body provides no explanation for certain normal phenomena of cognitive life, including, in the final analysis, understanding and communication in its better forms. Abilities of perception cannot be fully explained by chains of molecular and electrical interactions. The physical life-sciences approach this conundrum by (generally speaking) arguing that the complexity of the system enables this apparent qualitative gap, and that when enough of the transactions andf simultaneous chemical and electrical interactions of the complex brain are identified, all will become clear.

But this is a long stretch, and in my view is so long a stretch as to verge on the improbable.

A