[flagged]
The fact that you had to add the parenthetical here to hedge your bet demonstrates that you don't even entirely believe your own claims.
[0]: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Philosophical+Foundations+of+Neu...
[1]: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/neuroscience-and-philosophy/97...
> Many STEM people hate this because they want to axiomatically believe materialist science can reach everything, despite the evidence to the contrary.
Do we have actual evidence that it can't reach everything? That would be "evidence to the contrary". What you have given is evidence of its inability to reach everything so far, in its current form. That's still not nothing - the pure materialists are committed to that position because of their philosophical starting point, not because of empirical evidence, and you show that that's the case. But so far as I know, there is no current evidence that they could never reach that goal.
[Edit to reply, since I'm rate limited: No, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The materialists don't get the freebee, and neither do you. In fact, I was agreeing with you about you pointing out that the materialists were claiming an undeserved freebee. But you don't get the freebee, for the same reason that they don't.]
The philosophical definitions also sometimes preclude any human from being able to meet the standard, e.g. by requiring the ability to solve the halting problem.
Without knowing which thing you mean, we can't confidently say which arrangements of matter are or are not conscious; but we can still be at least moderately confident (for most definitions) that it's something material because various material things can change our consciousness. LSD, for example.
I feel really encouraged here, because I think this example has surfaced recently (to my awareness at least) of a good example of material impacts on conscious states that seems to get through to everybody.
I think the one about drugs is helpful because it speaks to the special things the mind does, the kind of romanticized essentialism that's sometimes attributed to consciousness, in virtue of which it supposedly is beyond the reach of any physicalist accounting or explanation.
Is software electrical? It certainly runs on electrical hardware. And yet, it seems absurdly reductionist to say that software is electrical. It's missing all the ways in which software is not like hardware.
Is consciousness similar? It runs on physical (chemical) hardware. But is it itself physical or chemical? Or is that too reductionist a view?
(Note that there is no claim that software is "woo" or "spirit" or anything like that. It's not just hardware, though.)
Humans being unable to figure out how inanimate matter gives rise to consciousness is not evidence that "strict materialism on consciousness is misguided". Or is there some other evidence I'm unaware of?
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Sure, and maybe Cthulu is about to awaken the sunken city of R'lyeh. You can't prove me wrong either.