Essentially your argument is that consciousness doesn't exist. That we are equivalent to highly sophisticated computers running a program, is that correct? The

Essentially your argument is that consciousness doesn't exist. That we are equivalent to highly sophisticated computers running a program, is that correct? The problem with this argument is that your conscious perception is actually the only thing you can know to exist. Everything else is sense data fed into that consciousness. You assume that the external world that manifests itself via sense data exists because it appears consistent. But as I sit here typing this the only thing I can know with certainty is that 'I' exist and am conscious (by definition). This process of being conscious, of perceiving the world, is what I am arguing is outside the realm of science. Now I know a number of people are of the opinion that if you have a sufficiently complicated machine, biological or otherwise, consciousness will become some emergent property. And maybe this is so. But just saying 'it emerges' is not science. It's hand waving. So instead we have to just accept that for the moment we cannot speak of it.