[anon84873628]

That's why I said "pragmatism" and "preponderance". It's a safer bet to believe science can explain consciousness than it is to believe in some alternative explanation, which otherwise makes no appearance in the universe.

If we had magic wands and ghosts floating around, then yeah I'd believe some kind of dualism or metaphysics. But if consciousness is the only real mystery in the universe, then sticking with materialism as the sole basis of reality seems pretty reliable.

Separately, the fact that changing the brain even a little bit can drastically change conscious experience, sure points to the brain being the cause. It makes sense that "experience" could be a side effect of certain highly complex highly connected systems. It doesn't make sense that "experience" (i.e. "having thoughts") magically drives those systems a certain direction. By the time I experience a thought, the underlying physics for it have already happened.

[smokedetector1]

You're free to believe what you want, but be aware that

> It's a safer bet to believe science can explain consciousness

is not the rigorous logical position you are making it out to be. That is purely an opinion. There is no evidence that materialist science can explain consciousness - that's both an issue of track record and of principle (see the "hard problem" discussion).

> consciousness is the only real mystery in the universe

Consciousness is... pretty important. I wouldn't call it "the only real mystery," I'd call it, maybe, "THE mystery." So we must see things pretty differently if that's how you feel about it.

> It makes sense that "experience" could be a side effect of certain highly complex highly connected systems. It doesn't make sense that "experience" (i.e. "having thoughts") magically drives those systems a certain direction.

Again, "it makes sense" is an opinion. I'm not sure why you see it as less "magical" that the movement of particles would cause a subjective experience, but that is an opinion and a viewpoint, not a strictly rational belief system.

For example, to me, it makes sense and aligns more with my experience and studies that there is a soul that somehow interacts with the brain. We don't know how, but we also don't know how experience should be caused by matter, so I'm just not sure why people like yourself seem to think people like me are being foolish, superstitious, and irrational, and that your viewpoint is supported by science and logic, when it factually isn't.

Your viewpoint is supported not by the evidence, but by an axiomatic belief in materialism.

[anon84873628]

>I'm not sure why you see it as less "magical" that the movement of particles would cause a subjective experience, but that is an opinion and a viewpoint, not a strictly rational belief system.

Because cause->effect. If there is a soul or some other non-material power in the universe, why does it only influence the chemical reaction of animal brains? (We're not assuming the human species is special, right?)

My issue is that you paint tech people as arrogant or "disconnected from an experience of their own aliveness and soul" when in fact there is a much more mundane explanation -- they just have no good reason to believe in souls.

I've had many interesting and transcendent experiences, no reason to see them as anything other than extraordinary chemical states. For the closing remarks on this thread: why do you believe what you do?

[smokedetector1]

We've clearly reached the limit of whatever common ground we can find here and will have to agree to disagree on what we each find intuitive and plausible.

All I hope to accomplish is to move you an inch away from the stance that materialism is the only reasonable way to think. That is what I mean by arrogance.

Cheers