[ythl]

This whole argument is silly. Apparently the burden of proof is on whomever you want it to be on. The burden of proof is on you? Simply rephrase the argument and suddenly it's on the other person.

OP's original claim was "Consciousness is not supernatural." Here, I'll define supernatural as "beyond our understanding of the laws of nature". Thus, OP's claim rephrased is:

"Consciousness is within our current understanding of the laws of nature."

Now we have a positive claim, and the burden of proof is back on OP.

[gnaritas]

> Apparently the burden of proof is on whomever you want it to be on

No, I've been very clear how to deterministically determine it, you're not listening or responding to anything or any point made; You're having the same argument with several people yet are unable to admit you're wrong; so we're done, you don't know how to converse or the capacity to change your mind when shown your mistakes.

[ythl]

> No, I've been very clear how to deterministically determine it

Oh yes, you've been very clear indeed. "All" I have to do is prove that consciousness is supernatural in order to be right. And how do I do that? You've basically cornered me with an impossible task by shaping the semantics to be in your favor.

You want proof that consciousness is supernatural? Just wait until you die and then you can marvel all day long at the fact that you can still think without a physical body. I'll reserve my "told you so" until then (~50 years?)

[gnaritas]

> "All" I have to do is prove that consciousness is supernatural in order to be right.

No all you have to do to be right is not demand impossible proofs of negative statements. The correct answer to a claim that "consciousness is not supernatural" is say it's an invalid claim as it's impossible to prove a negative statement except in maths. Done, simple as that. Negative claims are invalid and ought simply be rejected out of hand. Only falsifiable claims are valid claims, this is basic science, if it isn't falsifiable it's garbage.