Please do excuse me for the delay in getting back, Pronounce
, a heavy load over here, these days.
, I have come to conclude, in face of the evidences at large, that such is the case, we are biological through and through, and only have that certain dependency on energy--which I guess we'll have to hold outside the realm of biology, though not the physical universe
Before I answer your question, however, please do let me give a little further background, unasked for (so as to highlight the latter, forthcoming, portion which does answer your question).
I grew up in a protestant setting with my grandfather's being a rural circuit preacher for the Methodist Church. My father was a lay-preacher, and very involved. However, in highschool, I became a little 'open minded' (shall we say?) and also looked into Hinduism, as well. (Perhaps the greatest reason for that was my interest in India, and my studying Hindi at the time.)
Jump on over a handful of years, or so, and I'm what you would call a 'true believer
.' I took up serious Bible study at that time, going so far as to study the Greek and Hebrew and getting original recensions (such as Aland & Nestle's 27th ed., BHS, and LXX Stuttgart, etc.) and scholarly works on such. I've been a member of the Society for Biblical Literature for coming up on 10 years now. This learning, and (again) open mindedness towards the data base of Christianity (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shinto...as it turned out too...to more or less degrees) presented the evidences for those individual theist-based religious belief systems.
In the mean time, however, I had attempted to use--as one might expect
--various bits and pieces of scientific evidence to support ID. Well, being the slightly perfectionist that I am, and due to a certain degree of 'open mindedness' which, to whatever degree, I have always seem to have had, I slowly came to see that the better evidences of what nature is, has done, and is doing, belied the data bases of those several theist-based religious belief systems. The total of that evidence leads to the more likely conclusion that nature
is what we should be looking at instead of human designed god-models, and the doctrine which surround the particular systems.
I have been a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for a good while now, and am a member of the Society for Neuroscience, and the New York Academy of the Sciences too. (and still belong to SBL) I have been studying and doing research on the Central Nervous System, particularly the brain, for some six years now--which, of course, is very short, and nothing to brag about, but is still, that much time, at least
One thing to keep in mind, Pronounce
, is that being a biological entity such as the H. sapiens is, does not mean that we do not have a mind--of course we have minds, just as other primates do, and probably most other mammals as well (and I'm putting this on the safe side by stopping there, that's all)
It would be an error to conclude that by our brains' being a result of biological process, it could not be said that we have minds; in that the noun 'mind
' came especially from that very state of brain build/state. If one were to study the old Hebrew texts (in Hebrew, I mind you), it becomes clear that the earlier postulators of that system seemed to have realized as much--that which is the being--either animal or human--is that soul. Thus, the soul, along with the body and mind that it is, dies. (and that's the end of it, until that resurrection idea, according to that model
The Platonic, or Neo-Platonic idea of 'soul,' as is still commonly held by a good number of people yet, is a false notion. This is what nature teaches us.