> I get the feeling you aren't aware of the hard problem of consciousness, so I'll leave this here for you to read up on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_pro

> I get the feeling you aren't aware of the hard problem of consciousness, so I'll leave this here for you to read up on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness. Are you familiar with concepts like qualia? I recommend reading that wiki too. This is, again, saying a problem is hard, and then concluding that since we can't solve it, the solution is mind! Which again remains a premature conclusion. > The problem for you is that you still fail to draw a distinction between 2 highly correlated phenomena: the chemical cascade & the perception of red. No, that's not a failure. That's my entire point. There aren't two phenomena: they are the same thing. > We can put someone under anesthesia, shine red light into their eyes & they will still have the chemical cascade, but will not experience or perceive red. How do you square this circle? Surely you can see how inserting a chemical into the brain might change or interfere with the chemical cascade? If you assume that the chemical cascade IS the perception of red, then interfering with the chemical cascade preventing the perception of red makes perfect sense. > I've looked at brains under the microscope... never once have I seen a red triangle, or green square, or blue circle, yet here they are in my mind. Again your confusing correlation for the thing itself. I must admit I got a chuckle out of this. Is this what you think I'm claiming? This is definitely not what I'm claiming. I'm just going to quote this so you can't retract it. > those neural imaging techniques are all largely about correlation, which is my point exactly. Neural imaging is done with physical machines, which can only detect physical phenomena. "Correlating" means to take two things and show them to be related. So if you're correlating two phenomenon with machinery that can only detect physical phenomena, you can only correlate physical phenomena. If you're claiming that neural imaging shows the correlation between a chemical cascade and the processes of the mind, then the processes of the mind must be a physical phenomenon--which is my point. > I know it's probably hard for someone who refuses to believe consciousness exists to admit that consciousness does in fact exist as a separate distinct phenomenon, so I won't try too hard to convince you. I don't refuse to believe in consciousness--consciousness certainly exists, as electrical and chemical processes in the brain. And I wouldn't refuse to believe in consciousness as distinct from electrical and chemical reactions in the brain, if you presented any evidence for that assertion, instead of just repeating it and adding new unfounded claims. > I'm sure with time you'll make that distinction too. You are sure of a great many things.