Metaphysically joined at the hip with physical things!
This discussion is rapidly becoming senseless. What are your definitions of metaphysically and moot?
By "metaphysically" I mean pertaining to a thing's essential nature. It's the nature of at least some non-physical entities (we're discussing "mind" and related entities) to be inextricably and fundamentally - "metaphysically" - related to the physical objects that generate them (i.e. the brain). It's a moot point, IOW useless, to try to claim that they're inherently separate entities, even though it makes more sense to analyze the nonphysical mind in very different terms than the physical brain.
If you think that's senseless, then I don't know what to say, except "g'nite".
Metaphysically joined at the hip with physical things! = (The essential nature of something is to be) joined at the hip with physical things..
It is the nature of at least some non-physical entities (omitted) to be (superglued, as an essential and necessary part) – “(pertaining to the essential nature)” – related to the physical objects that generate them. It is useless to try to claim that they’re (essential characteristic)ly separate entities, even though it makes more sense to analyze the nonphysical mind in very different terms than the physical brain.
That makes it evident that your mind is metaphysically(in the jennyp sense) closed. You have defined the mind and brain relationship despite acknowledging that even for something as simple as a digital computer one cannot determine purpose from physical measurement. I do note that somehow you have made a weaker statement for the mind in claiming that it makes more sense to “analyze” the mind in different terms than the brain. That is in contrast to -- you won't understand why it happened in any meaningful way by examining the electronic pulses. But then again you might have meant – it is difficult to understand why …
In any case, it is as I suspected, a senseless endeavor to go on. Nothing could sway your mind. I seem to remember making a similar statement to you with respect to miracles. You would never accept anything as a miracle. I believe I presented it as a question which you never answered. One further rhetorical question before I close. Do you know what an emulator is?
I suggest you use naturally or inherently instead of metaphysically, that way you won’t confuse people.