Incorrect usage of the term "sound". Also, in that same sentence, you're committing an appeal to authority (another fallacy).
sound - adjective - based on valid reasoning, sensible; thorough.
Your first post is also appealing to authority by quoting resources (Immanuel Kant), making your quote hypocritical and your argument null.
Neurologists are experts on the brain. What they're not experts on, by default, is neurophilosophy. Studies done on the "brain itself" are studies done collecting third person data. The collection of third person data does not currently support this third person phenomenon causing the existence of the first person perspective.
Take out your premises about processing power and enigma, and your argument then becomes: These people are experts on the brain, they say the brain causes the mind, therefore the brain causes the mind. Yet, this is an illogical argument, because although your conclusion COULD be true, the premises do not absolutely NECESSITATE it. This is simple informal logic.
Yes, they are experts on the brain through scientific research, and correct, they are not experts in neurophilosophy because they are not philosophers, they are scientists, but they still utilize philosophy by the action of theory. They do not ponder the existence of thought by reading a bunch of ancient manuscripts or holy books or listen to modern philosophers, or spend hours meditating, doing qigong, and reading tea leafs and writing their discoveries on the dried skin of goats... they work in a lab with advanced technology that measures the brain and as far as they can tell from decades of research is thoughts emerge from the brain. Different phases of consciousness are measured by brain waves (Beta, Alpha, Theta, Delta), and thoughts come from consciousness, and on a neurological level, consciousness, as far as they can tell, emerges from the brain.
True, no one really knows what mind is or how consciousness works, but according to experts in the field of brain science, the logical conclusion (a sound
conclusion) is that they stem from the brain. Studies have shown that religious experiences can be duplicated by connecting electrodes to the scalp that manufacture visions of spirits and feelings of ecstacy (God or Koren Helmut), thus providing another argument for the power of the brain as an enigma that counteracts the altruistic and metaphysical perception of divine interaction.
I am not saying these discoveries are concrete, but that they are more viable than thoughts solely emerging from a metaphysical source. I practice various forms of metaphysics and have my own theories on how things work and understand them from a basic Western occult and Eastern holistic medical and mystical perspective, but science is on the leading edge of discovery that makes a lot of the old theories of magic and internal alchemy seem dogmatic, out dated, and even useless and harmful.
To get the point across, in my new qigong class we are learning to 'speak with the spirits' of our organs. To some this is literal, as if entities really do exist in each organ, to others it merely represents a way of communication with our visceral selves. Neither is correct and neither is false, because it depends on ones beliefs and experiences.
What we can both agree on, I would hope, is that no one really knows where thoughts come from. I do not believe in absolutes, but I cannot deny what science has discovered, and neither can I deny what I have experienced first hand and with groups of people that defy logic and scientific explanation. What they cannot explain I have my own theories, what I cannot fully inteleccutually comprehend, I have my experiences and do my best to understand.
I always return to the wisdom of Eliphas Levi - Faith and Reason must meet in the middle for there to be lasting progress of humanity and planetary evolution.