Are spiritualists seeking a soul driving the brain like illiterates seeking a horse driving a car?

Past karma Hare Krishna question are spiritualists who look for the soul within the brain like illiterates who look for a horse within a train atheists argue that it is only because of our ignorance of our science that we think that there is something called a soul when scientists have actually studied the brain and have found out that there is no such thing inside the brain and this belief is primitive like an illiterate peasant who has never seen a car being driven or a train or a machine being driven without some animal and therefore thinks that a machine must be required and similarly we think that a soul must be required for consciousness how do we respond to this analogy answer this analogy assumes what it is what is the point which is actually unproven so in the case of of a say chariot or a cart and an animal driving it its well known fact that an animal is required for driving the vehicle and therefore there is the question when a vehicle moves without a without a some draft animal then how is it moving and then some illiterate peasant may say that ok it is because of a invisible horse or something like that so here there is a well documented example as well as a well documented mechanism by which normally at least in earlier times animals would be driving vehicles and there is also a well documented mechanism which the illiterate patient is not aware of how the train or a mechanical machine a vehicle will move without any animal in it but none of these apply to the example to the brain and consciousness so now first of all let’s consider this is there any well known example of anything being conscious using something external just like there is a clear example of a horse being a horse driving a chariot so there is no clear example of say some external source of consciousness linking itself externally and driving itself and say animating the body and there is no mechanism for which by which this happens that we know of at least mainstream science knows of nor does mainstream science know of any mechanism by which matter can produce consciousness nor is there any documented example of matter actually producing consciousness so this is actually not an analogy this is a disanalogy disanalogy means something in which there are no significant parallels but the parallels are assumed so that people will people will come to a misleading conclusion now what is the reality actually if you look at the situation there are mainstream neurosurgeons and neuroscientists even Nobel laureate neurosurgeons like Wilder Penfield John Eccles, Charles Sherrington who have studied the brains working for decades and after their decades of study they have concluded that the consciousness does not reside originate in the brain so John Eccles said that the brain is the messenger of consciousness and then I have written another article on this website which talks about how Wilder Penfield tried to stimulate various parts of the brain and try to get a person to be conscious and to see the effect on the consciousness and the person actually got various memories of what happened what had happened maybe 10 years ago or 5-6 months ago or 3 years ago all those memories were stimulated by activating the different centers of the brain but nowhere did the person feel that actually I am the doer when certain memories were activated it was not there was just that it was the observer and the observer was not inside the brain so it’s a elaborate experiment when he was told to raise his hands he would raise his hands and say that I am raising the hand the subject but when a part of the brain was stimulated and the person’s hand was raised and that got raised now I am not raising the hand you are raising my hand through the brain so who was that center of consciousness the center of the feeling that I am the doer there is no one there who that nowhere in the brain where science could detect that material science could detect that so therefore this is a disanalogy and as far as the illiterate inference because of illiteracy is concerned that same analogy can be turned the other way that same analogy can be turned the other way in the sense that if a person has lived always in dark then suddenly the person turns around and one day sees light and wonders how did darkness produce light actually darkness does not produce light it is darkness which is the absence of light but because the person was so habituated to darkness so that person always thinks where the darkness is the starting point so Louis Pasteur gave this example and he says that he gave a similar example basically he says that today you assume that matter comes from matter produces consciousness agonize over how it happens but what is to say that 100 years later you won’t think that actually it is consciousness that produces matter and then you wonder how consciousness produces matter so the analogy can be used both ways and what we have to look at is the reasonableness of the analogy and the evidence for that analogy so till now no one has been able to produce consciousness nor does mainstream science have an explanation of consciousness in materialistic terms whether it be in terms of neural signals or in terms of digital signals in robots or anything like that we don’t even have an explanation nor experimental demonstration and in fact there are scientists who have stated that actually we don’t even know what it is to be conscious and that’s why consciousness is even when the science when science general produced its one of its anniversary issues where it talked about the important unanswered questions in science so there it said that this was the second most difficult most important and difficult unanswered question in science the first being the origin of the universe where did the universe come from and then how does consciousness originate so that means this example which is given it misrepresents scientific reality as is accepted by mainstream science today why because mainstream science in terms of what general science is saying magazine science is saying that consciousness is not an explained phenomena whereas this example misleads by portraying that the explanation is already there and just illiterate people are so ignorant that they don’t understand the explanation so when this sort of misleading analogies are given we have to go to the root and examine and show the demonstrate the invalidity of the analogy by showing the disanalogy we can avoid getting getting confusion because of such disanalogies thank you Hare Krishna.