No, you are talking about scientific evidence, because you are compelled to go to a more restrictive criteria that isn't germane, and if provided with scientific evidence, you will find something to restrict it further, as far as is necessary to exclude it as "evidence". Fortunately, your restrictions don't actually matter in any way.

We can do a Philosophy of Science definitional dance here as to whether peer-reviewed studies are "science", but it doesn't appear it will be particularly constructive.

As you might guess, I reject that this is a "debunking" at all. Looks like mainly a tautological argument that "consciousness is only the brain, therefore any claims of consciousness apart from the brain are false".

With some Appeal to Authority and non-germane claims about "anecdotal evidence". Peer-reviewed studies are not anecdotes.

If you think you can debunk it, do so here. Handwaving a link, isn't it.

Testimony is evidence. You can argue about the relative strength of that evidence, but not whether it is evidence per se. You have the entire history of the judicial system constraining you from equivocating/weaseling out of accurate definitions.

What possible mechanism allows for copying software onto a thumb drive, executing it on another machine, then copying its "state" back? You simply need a substrate for this, and although such things as dark matter could suffice to maintain state, we do not need a specific substrate to be identified for it to be theoretically possible. Physics doesn't even know how many dimensions there are--are you prepared to say you can exclude all other mediums of data/state/consciousness?

Jesus said, "A city being built on a high mountain and fortified cannot fall, nor can it be hidden."

--Thomas

Because, whenever people have disagreements within a subject, whatever it is, that means everyone is wrong.

This is basically the same issue as canonicity. What you think you know about it, you're wrong.

While it's difficult to argue a stance based on analogy to an entirely different perceptual modality (and one which seems probably straightforwardly explainable by the fact the instinctual revulsion from "almost humanlike" correlates best with corpses (animated or no), and this has clear disease-avoidance advantages...

As someone holding a "doctrine", I'll note this really shouldn't be surprising at all, regardless of subject. Things resulting from "knowing just enough to be dangerous" are almost always more problematic than that which is seen as overtly wrong. Say, take Luminiferous Aether. It was "close enough" to hang around erroneously for quite some time in physics. A completely different, or obviously wrong, model likely would have been superseded much more quickly.

No.

Recounting events that happened from the perspective of being "outside the body" while comatose is such evidence. Perceiving "from outside oneself" could arguably be a hallucination, recounting actual events requiring visual and auditory perception to know, that occurred while one was in a comatose state, could not.

Here's one source.

While you're at it, out of curiosity, what do you think the bible's stance on 401K plans and stock options for workers should have been?

Oh, that would be an impossible anachronism economically, you say...?

I noted that my definition was open to scientific, but not definitional, objection, and here you are, informing me of what I said.

You are simply declaring it "not a valid test" on the basis of... nothing. It may not conform to your epistemological preferences, but that hardly matters.

Self-reporting is a valid indicator for phenomena of consciousness that are not easily subjected to quantification by scientific instruments. I can certainly ask for someone's self-reported stance on whether Mondays make them unusually sad, and the answer is probably accurate regardless of whether it is provable via an MRI.

As for your dog's soul, better to ask for the affirmative evidence it does exist here. We have peer-reviewed NDE studies indicating it exists, per self-reporting "eye witness" accounts, for humans. We do not have the equivalent for dogs.

"...your original claim that 'nefesh shaya' is what differentiates us from animals..."

I made no such claim. The term is not an attribute, it is a descriptor.

It is best translated as "living soul", which does indeed include humans and animals. Note that this term does not imply "immortal soul".

As I later explicitly used English for in an elaborating argument, categorizing both humans and animals as "living souls" (or "living beings") is not synonymous with stating that humans are a subcategory of animals.

Here is an early Google hit which brief review indicates I'm in agreement with.

Finally, a reasonable and pertinent response.

Though I could probably refine it, "living beings not possessing the attribute of an immortal soul" would probably do. This could be open to scientific objections, but not definitional ones.

Note that there could be bipedal, clothes-wearing hominids included by this definition, particularly if their self-reported possession of a soul is negative. I am well aware of that.

Then, the specific "ties to reality", so we can evaluate their objective weight for a given domain. You are assuming one domain of applicability, which you have no reason to do other than, I suggest, conceptual laziness.

I'm quite well aware of the practical usefulness of the categorical system for given domains, and its status as "common sense". Neither of these is the question at hand.

Couldn't ask for a more appropriate respondent here.

I'm amazed you cannot see this as an arbitrary categorical construct.

These can be organized innumerable ways, none of which would have exclusive metaphysical "correctness".

Well, as I said, I am perfectly willing to respect your demand that you be considered an animal. There is simply no actual reason you can expand that to what "we" are. That is a freely-chosen and arbitrary preference you've made for yourself, by acceding to a practically-useful categorical system as the exclusively valid one.

I suggest reading Pirsig on Euclidian "versus" Riemann geometry for an entirely non-religious treatment of this issue, that you may find more palatable.

Nice navel-gazing ad hominem with a little psychic projection.

Move on to an argument whenever you are ready.