" ...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."

These statements are half-truths, Amos. There are indeed experiences and abilities that have not been adequately explained yet, but it is far from clear that they cannot be explained by molecules and electrons and chemistry. It seems to me that the number & types of assumptions that need to be made in order to explain them without physical phenomena gets faily large & subjective.....and finally becomes rhetorical/linguistic. People have experiences that 'seem' to be non-physical, so they (naturally) create language to refer to them - then they act as if the naming confers some sort of 'truth'. (You will probably agree this happens in religious claims...it is just hard to bite the bullet and admit it 'might' happen in your own experiences.)

   Let me be clear...I am not **claiming** that this is always the case, only that it IS possible to describe theoretical causes for such experiences in ways other than metaphysical, subjective language.
   I am the eternal skeptic in these matter, but being a LONG term Sci-Fi reader, I would love to have my doubts overridden with some sort of proof...or at least evidence that *I* can't imagine other possible explanations for. I would jump for joy if ESP and OOB & Clairvoiance and Past Lives and Spirits/Souls etc..could be verified and explained!

It is a fine line I walk insisting on skeptical analyses and offering other 'theories', while not absolutely denying some possibilities. I think this is sorta what Science is/does.