I have come across this book by authors Keith Augustine and the late Michael Martin. The book argues that the mind is completely dependent on the brain. Therefore, when the brain dies the mind dies. This is just a partial review of the book as it would take a lot of time to review this book and it's because it's a lot of the same stuff that dualist's already know about. I would just like to refute certain things that have taken my attention. One of the argument's in the book comes from the physics part of it. That it violates known physical laws however those laws are often violated regularly. The problems with the casual closure argument is that number one it has never been shown to be scientifically true. Number two a lot of scientists disagree with this argument and state the universe is actually open. Keith Augustine obviously has no clue what substance dualism actually entails. My view of the soul is that it's an etheric like substance that is made up of a different kind of matter. This etheric body vibrates at a higher frequency than normal matter.
The etheric body (soul) does not get effected by just things as brain damage only the the mind which is largely information based. The split brain experiments doesn't help Keith's case whatsoever as the recent data show no split consciousnesses. On top of that Multiple Personality disorder has been largely discredited.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170125093823.htm
What is in question is the degree of the dependency between mind and brain. It doesn't seem as strong as what many of the scientists let on it is. Keith also mentions in the book if the brain is a mere receiver of the mind then why is the brain so complexed?. Has Keith ever heard of the view of a complex receiver. If the brain is a producer or generator of the mind/consciousness than it would equally have to be complexed to do that as well. What evidence Keith states would show that substance dualism is probably false?. I have actually mentioned that strong AI would deliver such strong evidence as how could are mind and consciousness be replicated in a machine if it's destined to go to the afterlife?. However, unfortunately for Keith, Strong AI is looking less and less likely as more and more false predictions come out about when it will happen. So we keep moving forward in time making it less likely. Keith just uses excuses as to why the evidence for an afterlife doesn't work. He is fixated on an agenda to push his view along with the authors and scientists in this book without giving a neutral view on this subject which is rightfully deserves. No dualist denies the fact of interaction between the mind and brain, their is no one way casual street however like Keith Augustine would like readers to believe. Instead we have strong evidence that the mind can also effect the brain.
One of the evidence's that Materialist's use as evidence for dependency of the mind and brain. Is that bigger brains make better minds. That however is not true instead often brain size has nothing to do with intelligence which is one of the key aspect of the mind. If the production theory was true you would actually expect bigger brains to make better minds that is not the case. I know many people with smaller brains than some of my other friends who have bigger brains but those friends of mine with the smaller brains actually are smarter than them they have a high IQ. Another evidence that materialist use is that when the brain is damage the mind is also damaged this is the other line of evidence in favored of dependency we are told. Unlike materialist's though we jump to the conclusion that mind is damaged when the brain is. Instead we point out to the fact that their is a strong correlation between the brain and the mind. However that doesn't lead to the conclusion that the brain causes the mind.
There is two compelling reasons putting instead the evidence for survival and psi phenomenon for a second why it's actually not logical to think that the mind/consciousness must cease to exist when the brain/body does.
1. All physical things are subject to death no other way around that. However, consciousness is largely subjective, we know of nothing else that is subjective in nature. How can something that is largely subjective die?. This in of itself would strongly argue for the existence of an afterlife.
2. If their is no end or beginning to the universe and it's like the cyclic model than eventually you would exist again somewhere in the the universe.
