>I'm afraid what I'm saying may not make much sense, given the short space I have to say it. It doesn't, not to me. You mention gods but how do you know of god

>I'm afraid what I'm saying may not make much sense, given the short space I have to say it. It doesn't, not to me. You mention gods but how do you know of gods? I'm sure if not for the material experiences of others, the material by which we communicate through such as books, computers, verbal communication, etc, I doubt you'd have any concept of gods. >The materialist has no way -- not even the vaguest hint of a way -- to explain the mental, the phenomenology of our consciousness. That's right, because to do so relies on giving objective proofs to explain subjective experience and to a pure subjectivist, it won't be good enough. But then again, subjectivists can just make things up and say 'it's real and true because I experience it' which is what most of them do or just rely on what they've read from others, ie, objectivity from the materialistic world. But there are other ways of explaining consciousness through objectivity or physicalism, if you want to call it, such as panpsychism so you can also argue your point isn't true there. Either way, any time you argue through physical methods (computers, text, etc) to discount the physical experience, it stifles your argument. And any time you try to validate the subjective, you also validate the subjective arguments of the people you're arguing against because why can't their subjective argument be just as true as yours? So either way, subjective arguments are just as weak as the objectivity or physicalism (I use both interchangeably sometimes because they're dependent) you're arguing against. Personally I consider both valid. Subjective minds are still slaves to the objective world (needs food, shelter, etc) and the objective world, that's alive anyway, is composed and "validated" by subjective experiences.