[tavavex]

Can you explain what is contradictory in the view you oppose? You lump a few of these opinions into one and they're pretty different from one another, but the essence of it seems to be disagreeing that humans can be explained with enough knowledge. You say that this is contradicted through natural human experience so much that you think the other side refuses to admit that there's a huge gash in their view. Basically that they're lying to themselves and everyone knows 'the truth'. What is that contradictory experience?

To me, the contradictory view is the one assuming that everything in the world can be explained, except for humans. So far, people found that, given enough time and core knowledge, they could understand anything about the natural world, and we've been refining that process ever since. Since humans are a part of that world, are created in it and live in it, why would I think we're any different? There's a difference between thinking that humans are unique (in a way that makes us have immensely interesting properties) and thinking that humans are special (not subject to natural laws or constraints).

The troubling view for me is the alternative - the one that always tries to draw a hard line between humans and the 'explainable' rest of nature, like we must be different, alien and special to be worthy of interest and appreciation.

[smokedetector1]

Im not being condescending when I say genuinely thanks for engaging in good faith and without being rude! This topic can make people quite rude, in my experience. I guess because it's talking about people's deepest beliefs of themselves and the world.

I think you've distilled it well: I don't believe that human consciousness can be explained.

Obviously, we find neural mechanisms for aspects of it: of cognition, learning, language, movement, etc. And obviously there are the effects of drugs, e.g. anesthesia, psychedelics, anti-anxiety, etc.

But these are all effects on consciousness, they are not an explanation for the very existence of the observer, so to speak. And I don't believe that can be touched rigorously. The best we'll ever be able to do is gesture at it broadly and say "well, it certainly seems like everything has a physical cause and explanation." Whereas I take a different view: it certainly seems as though there is something special about consciousness.

It is certainly of the universe, and obviously interacts with the physical. But it also seems to go beyond it. The experience itself exists. And I do believe that this is intuitively obvious - we know we exist, we know we have a type of free will (obviously imperfect, affected by various circumstances, but nevertheless we exist).

But because we want to feel that everything has an explanation, and physical science has been so powerful and effective in every other domain, there's a tendency to say - "well, that stuff must be an illusion. Human perception is fallible."