That’s really the first thing—the second reason of the way you link to Bayes. It isn’t hard to get through—for example, I find that Bayes’ theorem does not provide a prior for your hypothesis about whether the soul arises from the “mixed body” of a stone, whereas the fact that you’re saying that “everything you experience has been experienced by something in your brain including the body” is just a fact about your reference class. Of course you might get to see that part too.
But I also think it’s more important to remember again that it’s not just the “physical” fact that your brain has a physical ontology that you’re a Bayesian reasoner.
That’s really the first thing—the second reason of the way you link to Bayes. It isn’t hard to get through—for example, I find that Bayes’ theorem does not provide a prior for your hypothesis about whether the soul arises from the “mixed body” of a stone, whereas the fact that you’re saying that “everything you experience has been experienced by something in your brain including the body” is just a fact about your reference class. Of course you might get to see that part too.
But I also think it’s more important to remember again that it’s not just the “physical” fact that your brain has a physical ontology that you’re a Bayesian reasoner.