Yet Another Proof That You are NOT Conscious (???)

Here is the link to yet another physicalist attempt to explain consciousness without understanding what it is trying to explain.

https://www.themandarin.com.au/128731-scientists-just-proved-these-two-brain-networks-are-key-to-consciousness/

 

To my frustration, the piece repeats the same omissions that are at the core of all physicalist analyses of consciousness that I have read so far.

 

As I mentioned in a previous post: 

In any attempt to achieve any possibility of a materialistic explanation of consciousness,

even in principle, one must take into account the singular property of consciousness, which is
that:  it is the only known observable phenomenon which observes itself. 
Without making that fact a prominent feature of the discussion, a necessary foundation of it,
one stumbles about in the darkness.

The article also repeats what I call "The Illusion Fallacy."

This fallacy involves a futile attempt to ascribe an illusion to itself,
that is to say, it claims that our consciousness is an illusion having an illusion.

This fallacy is so obviously absurd on the face of it, that for years I have tended to

skip over its mention, for that very reason.  No one, I thought, could take it seriously.

But they do.

Why do intelligent people commit this error so persistently?

The kindest answer I can think of is that, some people, actually are not conscious!

They are biological robots, zombies, computers, whatever words you wish, but they
do not posses INWARD consciousness, the kind that observes itself from within itself.

How else can one explain the kind of circular reasoning that describes an illusion as being

an illusion of an illusion?

It's like telling the little man who wasn't there, that he wasn't there.

Imagine some alien robots coming to earth from a galaxy far, far away, and without

encountering any people, the first thing they find is an automobile.
They study the automobile from front to back, top to bottom and left to right,
until they thoroughly understand all its workings, except for one part of the car.

The steering wheel.

The alien robots cannot imagine that the car was designed for use by a living,

conscious, purposeful creature.

The game of chess, likewise, has been analyzed for over a century by experts,

but there is one question that mystifies all analysts.  Why do people play it?

This is why I keep saying that, consciousness cannot be understood without

understanding life (not the biological description), and free will.

The three are a triunity in humans.

In my view, consciousness (and life, and free will) are not emanations of any physical process, but manifestations of a spiritual reality that overlays physical reality.

This is the core of the God paradigm.
.
.

Can There Ever Be a Material Explanation of Consciousness?

.

In any attempt to achieve any possibility of a materialistic explanation of consciousness, even in principle, one must take into account the singular property of consciousness, which is that:  it is the only known observable phenomenon which observes itself.  Without making that fact a prominent feature of the discussion, a necessary foundation of it, one stumbles about in the darkness.

 

Furthermore, no attempt to understand consciousness can make progress without accounting for two other indefinable, fundamental observed facts.  One of these is life, and the other is free will (volition, intent, purpose).

 

Materialism defines life as the emergent property of atoms and forces of nature.  However, there must be a principle of nature that organizes those atoms, and those forces, into the extraordinary phenomenon of life.  Is that principle, randomness?  The universe itself seems to be governed by intentional design.  Were we to leave it there, the materialist argument would be strong; but there is a further layer of fact, one that discredits random design.

 

Free will, that is, volition and intent, is so anathema to materialism (physicalism) that the two are utterly incompatible with each other.  If ever, in all the universe, there were to be even a single instance of a volitional choice being made, that single instance would completely invalidate the myth of physicalism.  

 

The materialist relegates free will to being an illusion, but what is it that is having the illusion?  Can a robot have the illusion that it is making an independent choice?  Can a living being be conscious, and yet relegate itself to the status of an algorithm?  If so, then what would be the value of life?  Of thought?  Of justice?

 

Of course all of this is subject to dispute, but in my view, there is no utility in regarding reality as merely physical, and great utility in viewing ourselves as morally accountable, spiritual beings inhabiting a physical world.
.